Bonds v. NJ Judiciary Admin. of the Ct.
Bonds v. NJ Judiciary Admin. of the Ct.
2024 WL 5227457 (D.N.J. 2024)
May 8, 2024
Bongiovanni, Tonianne J., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The plaintiff requested ESI from the defendant, the New Jersey Judiciary, but the court denied the request due to the plaintiff's failure to cooperate in agreeing to an ESI protocol and the public accessibility of relevant documents through federal and state lawsuits.
Additional Decisions
Bonds
v.
NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court, et al.
v.
NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court, et al.
Civil Action No. 19-18983 (GC)
United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Filed May 08, 2024
Bongiovanni, Tonianne J., United States Magistrate Judge
LETTER ORDER
*1 Dear Counsel:
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Lyreshia Bonds’ (“Plaintiff”) request to compel Defendant NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court (the “NJ Judiciary” or “Defendant”) to answer Interrogatories Nos. 4, 13, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 57, and Requests for Production Nos. 34, 48, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69 and 70.[1] Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's requests are addressed herein.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court presumes the parties’ familiarity with the history of this action and includes herein only background relevant to the dispute.
In November 2021, Plaintiff served discovery requests on the NJ Judiciary, including a Request to Produce Documents and a First Set of Interrogatories. (Docket Entry No. 54). Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories consisted of sixty-five (65) interrogatories. (Docket Entry No. 54-1). In July 2022, the parties raised a discovery dispute to the Court regarding Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Text Minute Entry dated 07/26/2022; See Docket Entry Nos. 53-55). Regarding the discovery dispute, Defendants argued that: (1) Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 33(a)(1), and (2) Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories were excessive, duplicative, and ambiguous. (Defs.’ Letter of 07/29/2022, at 1-3; Docket Entry No. 55).
To further address the parties’ discovery dispute, the Court scheduled an in-person status conference for October 19, 2022; same was subsequently adjourned to November 15, 2022, and then to January 18, 2023. (Text Order of 09/12/2022, Docket Entry No. 56; Docket Entry Nos. 58 and 59). During the hearing on January 18, 2023, the Court addressed many of Plaintiff's 65 interrogatories and provided the parties a framework for their continuing discovery. (Text Minute Entry of 01/18/2023; Docket Entry No. 60). The Court directed the parties to submit a status update regarding the production of discovery by March 31, 2023.
On February 23, 2023, the District Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissing Counts Six and Seven of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Consequently, all individual Defendants were dismissed from the case, leaving the NJ Judiciary as the sole Defendant.[2] (Docket Entry Nos. 61 and 62).
*2 On March 31, 2023, Defense counsel submitted its update regarding the production of discovery, detailing that: (1) the NJ Judiciary re-served approximately 1,835 pages of documents to Plaintiff; (2) the NJ Judiciary was working to obtain the additional discoverable material that Plaintiff sought by way of discovery; and (3) Plaintiff's counsel and Defense counsel recently conferred and agreed that Plaintiff would serve the NJ Judiciary with Requests for Admission in lieu of certain interrogatories she propounded, and that both sides would serve their responses to overdue discovery on or by April 28, 2023. (Def's Letter of 03/31/2023, at 1-2; Docket Entry No. 66). On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel submitted her update regarding the production of discovery, detailing that: (1) Plaintiff intended to submit all remaining Requests for Admission to the NJ Judiciary by April 7, 2023; (2) the NJ Judiciary indicated to Plaintiff that they need not answer Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, as the subject individuals were not parties to the litigation; and (3) the Court should order the NJ Judiciary to submit answers to all the Requests for Admission. (Pl.’s Letter of 04/03/2023, at 1-3; Docket Entry No. 67).
Given their submission, the Court entered the following:
TEXT ORDER: After reviewing the parties’ status updates (DE Nos. 66 and 67), the parties shall submit responses to any overdue written discovery by 4/28/2023. Depositions shall be scheduled thereafter. To the extent there is any dispute over requested discovery, the parties are directed to confer, in good faith, to resolve the dispute. An additional joint written status update shall be submitted no later than 5/5/2023. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 4/03/2023. (jem) (Entered: 04/03/2023)
(Docket Entry No. 68). On same date, Plaintiff's counsel e-mailed the Chambers of the Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J., detailing that the parties were unable to resolve the discovery dispute regarding the Requests for Admission. (Pl.’s e-mail to the Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. of 04/03/2023). As a result, the Court directed the parties to outline, in writing, their positions regarding this dispute. The parties submitted their supplemental briefs on April 5, 2023.
On May 2, 2023, the Court entered a Letter Order denying Plaintiff's discovery requests regarding the non-party individuals.[3] Specifically, the Court held:
Put simply, Plaintiff's requests for admissions from non-parties is not, pursuant to the Federal Rules, appropriate. Nor is Plaintiff's alternative request to serve interrogatories on these non-parties. Plaintiff's request is therefore DENIED. Insofar that the parties seek guidance following the discovery conference on January 18, 2023, Plaintiff shall direct any requests for admissions and/or interrogatories to the New Jersey Judiciary - the remaining party in this case. In the event that Plaintiff requires information from non-parties, she may seek same by issuing subpoenas in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.[4]
(Letter Order of 05/02/2023, at 3; Docket Entry No. 76). On May 26, 2023, Defense counsel filed a letter requesting a case management conference. (Def.’s Letter of 05/26/2023, at 3; Docket Entry No. 78). In their letter, Defense counsel maintained that Plaintiff's counsel's May 3, 2023, discovery requests, were non-compliant with the Court's May 2, 2023, Letter Order. (Id. at 1.) On May 30, 2023, via a Text Order a status conference was set for June 15, 2023, at 3:00 PM; same was subsequently adjourned and conducted on June 30, 2023, during which the Court limited discovery requests to the named Defendants. Discovery was to be provided by July 21, 2023. (Docket Entry Nos. 79 and 81); (Text Minute Entry of 06/30/2023).
*3 On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court, claiming that the NJ Judiciary was in violation of the discovery rules by failing to answer interrogatories, including Interrogatory No. 27 of Plaintiff's Request for Interrogatories. (Pl.’s Letter to the Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of 07/19/2023) (on file with the Chambers of Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J.). Plaintiff, once more, argued that the NJ Judiciary should be compelled to answer Plaintiff's interrogatories regarding the non-parties, as said non-parties were agents of the NJ Judiciary. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff maintained, “The employer should have to complete an investigation and answer for the employees who work for them.” (Id. at 2.)
On July 24, 2023, the NJ Judiciary filed its responsive letter. Defense counsel argued that the NJ Judiciary had responded to all of Plaintiff's discovery requests, having produced thousands of pages of discovery. (Def.’s Letter to the Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of 07/24/2023) (on file with the Chambers of Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J.). Additionally, Defense counsel noted that the NJ Judiciary had not responded to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, as the Requests for Admission remained directed to the non-parties in violation of the Court's May 2, 2023, Letter Order. (Id. at 3.)
On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel submitted an e-mail correspondence to the Court, seeking clarity as to the Court's directive regarding the service of interrogatories on non-parties. (Pl.’s e-mail to the Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of 10/11/2023). In her e-mail, Plaintiff's counsel stated:
At our last status conference, you indicated that the Plaintiff could send Interrogatories to the non-parties. You asked that the Defense counsel to send them to the employees because you didn't want us sending them to their homes. I'm writing to confirm this because now the Defense counsel is objecting to them. These are the same people you said we could not do admissions for but could send Interrogatories too. [sic]
(Id.) On the same date, the Court directed Defense counsel to respond to Plaintiff's e-mail no later than October 13, 2023, close of business.
In response, Defense counsel cited to the Court's May 2, 2023 Letter Order, emphasizing that the Court advised Plaintiff that she may seek information from non-parties by issuing subpoenas in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. (Def.’s Letter to the Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of 10/13/2023, at 1 (citing Letter Order of 05/02/2023, at 3; Docket Entry No. 76)).
On October 19, 2023, the Court e-mailed the parties and advised, “In reviewing the correspondences submitted by Plaintiff on 10/11/2023 and Defendants on 10/13/2023, it appears that Plaintiff's current request to serve interrogatories on non-parties was addressed in the Court's Letter Order dated May 2, 2023. Letter Order 3 (Docket Entry No. 76).” (E-mail of 10/19/2023 from Chambers of Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni to Pl. and Def.). More pointedly, the Court directed the parties to Its ruling in the May 2, 2023, Letter Order. (Id. (citing Letter Order of 05/02/2023). Additionally, the Court afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to submit a letter to the Court if she believed the Court was misunderstanding her request. (Id.)
On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court. In her letter, Plaintiff claimed that at the June 30, 2023, status conference, the Court indicated that Plaintiff was permitted to serve interrogatories on non-parties. Specifically, Plaintiff states:
[In her prior e-mail to the Court], the Plaintiff was not asking the Court if she could serve non parties Interrogatories. She was following the Courts [sic] instruction she was given on June 30, 2023 during the phone status conference. Please review the tape... The Court indicated that the Plaintiff could serve Interrogatories about the people in question #27, which were the subject of all the admissions and that the Defendant could serve those people with those Interrogatories.
*4 (Pl.’s Letter to the Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of 10/25/2023) (on file with the Chambers of Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J.). However, in another vein, Plaintiff stated, “The Plaintiff is requesting the Court compel the Defendant to answer Interrogatory #27 in detail. The rules do provide that a party can be compelled to answer questions that are properly placed before them.” (Id. at 2.)
On November 13, 2023, the Court entered a Letter Order denying Plaintiff's request to serve interrogatories on non-parties, holding:
The Court's directive in its Letter Order [of 5/02/2023; Docket Entry No. 76] was clear. It plainly delineated and found that Plaintiff's discovery demands on non-parties were impermissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Plaintiff has misunderstood and continues to misunderstand the Court's directive. To state categorically and pursuant to the May 2, 2023, Letter Order, plaintiff is not permitted to serve interrogatories on non-parties. Plaintiff shall direct any requests for admissions and/or interrogatories to the New Jersey Judiciary. In the event that Plaintiff requires information from non-parties, she may seek same by issuing subpoenas in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
(Letter Order of 11/13/2023, at 5-6; Docket Entry No. 87). The Court also noted:
[I]t is unclear if Plaintiff, in her letter, is requesting for the Court to confirm that she is permitted to serve interrogatories on the non-parties, or if she is requesting the Court to compel Defendant New Jersey Judiciary [a party] to answer Interrogatory #27 of Plaintiff's original set of interrogatories submitted on November 1, 2021 (“Interrogatory #27”).
(Id. at 5.) Consequently, and as to Plaintiff's request for the Court to compel the NJ Judiciary to answer Interrogatory #27, the Court directed the parties to submit a joint letter by November 28, 2023, detailing their respective positions regarding same.
On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff submitted her supplemental briefing to the Court, stating that: (1) she separated Interrogatory #27 into twenty-five (25) separate, new interrogatories and served them on the NJ Judiciary (“Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories”); (2) the NJ Judiciary should be compelled to answer Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, as they seek discoverable information pertaining to her case; and (3) Plaintiff would file a motion to compel discovery if the NJ Judiciary failed to answer Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories. (Pl.’s e-mail to the Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of 11/30/2023).
On December 1, 2023, the NJ Judiciary submitted its supplemental briefing to the Court, stating that: (1) Plaintiff has failed to provide a time period for her Interrogatory #27; (2) Plaintiff has failed to show that the interrogatory is relevant and that it may lead to admissible evidence; (3) With the additional 25 interrogatories, Plaintiff's interrogatories now total 106 interrogatories in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the parties’ first/second joint discovery plans; and (4) the NJ Judiciary has already produced much of Plaintiff's requested information, responding to over 100 interrogatories and providing Plaintiff with 4,000 documents. (Def.’s Letter of 12/01/2023, at 2-6; Docket Entry No. 91). The NJ Judiciary requests the Court to order that it not be required to answer Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, or in the alternative, that Plaintiff be required to seek leave every time she seeks to serve any written discovery requests on Plaintiff. (Id. at 6.)
*5 On the same date, Plaintiff filed her reply. Plaintiff argues that: (1) in 2021, the Court indicated that it was permissible for Plaintiff to serve more than 25 interrogatories due to the scope of the alleged discrimination; (2) the Court should not absolve the NJ Judiciary from its failure/responsibility to answer the interrogatories based on the discovery production to date; and (3) the Court should compel the NJ Judiciary to answer Interrogatory #27 and Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, as the interrogatories relate to numerous supervisors, managers and employees who have relevant, material and admissible information regarding the discrimination and retaliation of the Plaintiff. (Pl.’s Letter of 12/01/2023, at 1-2; Docket Entry No. 93).
Further, during the pendency of the foregoing discovery dispute, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket Entry No. 96), as well as a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Docket Entry No. 97). The Court terminated Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery but, given that a discovery dispute was pending, allowed Plaintiff to submit a supplemental brief. (See generally, Text Order of 12/21/2023; Docket Entry No. 98).
On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff submitted her supplemental brief, in which she requests the Court to compel the NJ Judiciary to adequately respond to her discovery requests.[5] (See Pl.’s Supp. Br.; Docket Entry No. 96-2). Such discovery requests include: (1) Interrogatories Nos. 4, 13, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 57, and (2) Requests for Production Nos. 34, 48, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69 and 70. (Id. at 4-17.) The Court now turns to these requests.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court has broad discretion in deciding discovery disputes. See United States v. Washington, 869 F.3d 193, 220 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that “[a]s we have often said, matters of docket control and discovery are committed to [the] broad discretion of the district court”); Halsey v. Pfeiffer, Civ. Action No. 09-1138, 2010 WL 3735702, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010) (noting that “[d]istrict courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes”); Gerald Chamles Corp. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., Civ. Action No. 07-1947, 2007 WL 4789040, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2007) (stating that it is “well-settled that Magistrate Judges have broad discretion to manage their docket and to decide discovery issues[.]”) The Court utilizes said discretion in considering whether to allow the aforementioned discovery.
As to interrogatories, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 33(a)(1) governs the number of interrogatories that may be served on a party. Rule 33(a)(1) states:
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).
Fed.R.Civ.P 33(a)(1). Rule 33(a)(2), which governs the scope of interrogatories, further instructs:
An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.
Fed.R.Civ.P 33(a)(2).
As to requests for production, Rule 34(a)(1) instructs that a party is required to produce documents that are within its “possession, custody, or control.” Consistent with the Federal Rules, parties have no obligation to produce documents that do not exist. Greene v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 484 F.App'x 681, 686 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Schwartz v. Marketing Pub. Co., 153 F.R.D. 16, 21 (D. Conn. 1994)(citation omitted); Baier v. Princeton Off. Park, L.P., Civ. Action No. 08-5296, 2018 WL 5253288, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2018); see Kim v. Eco Pro LLC, Civ. Action No. 22-7281, 2024 WL 1006262, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2024) (citing Fed.R.Civ. P. 34(a)(1)). Unless shown that counsel's representations are inaccurate, courts have held that representations by counsel indicating that all responsive documents have been produced and/or that no additional documents exist are sufficient to establish same. See Greene, 484 F.App'x at 686 (stating “Whenever a party requests the production of documents under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a), and the recipient of the request states that it does not have any responsive documents, we trust, at least in the absence of contrary information, that the recipient is responding truthfully.”); see also Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Tris Pharma, Inc. Civ. Action No. 09-3125, 2011 WL 4962221, at *8 (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2011) (“Plaintiffs have conducted an adequate search for documents responsive to Defendants’ requests ... [t]he Court accepts Plaintiffs’ representation that they have produced “all responsive documents” within their possession, custody, or control and “are not withholding any relevant documents” (citation omitted). Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 are appropriate and, therefore, denies Defendants’ request.”); see also Alexander v. F.B.I., 194 F.R.D. 299, 301 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that if the requesting party does not “provide any evidence demonstrating that responsive documents do, in fact, exist and are being unlawfully withheld, their motion to compel must fail.”).
*6 As for the scope of discovery, Rule 26 instructs that information is discoverable if it is both “relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Information is generally considered relevant if it “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. “The party seeking discovery has the burden to show that the information it seeks is relevant. See Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154, 159 (D.N.J. 2000).
Since “[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation” (Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)), discovery rules in general are given broad and liberal reading. In re G–I Holdings, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 428, 431 (D.N.J. 2003); Tele–Radio Sys., Ltd. v. De Forest Elecs., Inc., 92 F.R.D. 371, 375 (D.N.J. 1981) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978)). This is particularly true in a civil action, in which relevancy is to be construed liberally. Williams v. Am. Cyanamid, 164 F.R.D. 615, 616 (D.N.J. 1996).
The scope of discovery does, however, have ultimate and necessary boundaries. Schneck v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., Civ Action No. 92-4370, 1993 WL 765638, at *2 (D.N.J. July 27, 1993) (citing McClain v. Mack Truck, Inc., 85 F.R.D. 53, 57 (E.D.Pa. 1979)).
Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court may limit discovery if: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).
“[A] discovery request may be denied if, after assessing the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, the District Court finds that there exists a likelihood that the resulting benefits would be outweighed by the burden or expenses imposed as a consequence of the proposed discovery.” Takacs v. Union County, Civ. Action No. 08-711, 2009 WL 3048471, at *1 (D.N.J Sept. 23, 2009); see also Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 1999). “The purpose of this rule of proportionality is to guard against redundant or disproportionate discovery by giving the court authority to reduce the amount of discovery that may be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry.” Takacs, 2009 WL 3048471, at *1 (citing Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 2008 WL 1757929, at *4 (D.N.J. 2008)); see also Leksi, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 129 F.R.D. 99, 105 (D.N.J. 1989); Public Service Group, Inc. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 130 F.R.D. 543, 551 (D.N.J. 1990).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Threshold Considerations: Defendant's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) Objections and the January 18, 2023, Discovery Conference
The Court shall briefly address the NJ Judiciary's recurring Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) objections. Specifically, the NJ Judiciary states that Plaintiff has exceeded the 25 interrogatory maximum established by Rule 33(a)(1), causing many of Plaintiff's interrogatories to be procedurally impermissible. While It appreciates this objection, the Court shall not reject Plaintiff's interrogatories on this basis alone. In light of the parties’ prior joint discovery plans and the discovery conference held on January 18, 2023, the parties undisputedly contemplated and accepted that Plaintiff could exceed the normal bounds of Rule 33(a)(1). However, as noted herein, the scope of discovery—even when construed liberally—is not boundless. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C); see also Takacs, 2009 WL 3048471, at *1.
*7 As courts in this Circuit note, “the purpose of interrogatories is to discover the facts of a case or learn where such facts are available, and to narrow the issues of fact. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 25 F.R.D. 252, 253 (D.N.J. 1960); Ciarrocchi v. Unum Grp., Civ. Action No. 08-1704, 2010 WL 11527405, at *3 (D.N.J. May 6, 2010); see also Ascenzi v. O'Brien, 2008 WL 205235, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2008) (interrogatories “are intended to be exploratory in nature, designed to flush out facts, witnesses and documents so that the requesting party may thereafter prepare to prove his case in an orderly manner.”). Parties are not permitted to “ ‘go fishing’ and the trial court retains discretion to determine that a discovery request is too broad and oppressive.’ ” Schneck, 1993 WL 765638, at *2 (citing Marshall v. Westinghouse Electronic Corp., 576 F.2d 588 (5th Cir.1978), reh'g denied, 582 F.2d 966 (1978)). The Court conveyed this ethos during the January 18, 2023, discovery conference.[6]
At the conference, the Court emphasized that the discovery conference was intended to streamline discovery, serving as a guidepost for the parties. The Court specifically advised and cautioned that: (1) Plaintiff's interrogatories appeared overbroad and needed to be narrowed (e.g., Interrogatories Nos. 13, 15, 27, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 51-57); (2) given their scope in conjunction with the nature of the requests, Plaintiff's interrogatories raised confidentiality concerns and needed to be narrowed (e.g., Interrogatories Nos. 25, 51-57); and (3) potentially, Plaintiff's interrogatories sought information not readily available or maintained by the NJ Judiciary (i.e., statistical data), making these requests both burdensome and overbroad (e.g., Interrogatories Nos. 30-33, 36-37). The Court did not address Plaintiff's Requests for Production. Both Plaintiff's counsel and Defense counsel argued their respective positions yet acknowledged the Court's guidance. While the Court did not adjudicate the discovery issues, the Court did instruct the parties to confer regarding Plaintiff's discovery requests and narrow same based on the discovery conference. Defense counsel was also instructed to clarify if the NJ Judiciary maintained particular records and/or statistics sought by Plaintiff.
Despite the Court's guidance, it is apparent that Plaintiff has misunderstood the extent to which she was/is permitted to exceed the normal bounds of discovery. The Court, in exercising Its broad discretion in deciding discovery disputes, now addresses each of Plaintiff's discovery requests.
B. Interrogatory No. 4
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4 requests information regarding potential witnesses to the alleged conduct and claims in Plaintiff's Complaint.
Interrogatory 4: State the name and address of all persons believed to have knowledge of any facts relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and describe in detail the extent and nature of their knowledge (to the extent known by Defendant Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC following a reasonable inquiry).
*8 (Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 2; Docket Entry No. 96-5). In compliance with this request, the NJ Judiciary has provided Plaintiff with the names of non-party individuals who may have knowledge and/or relevant information relating to Plaintiff's claims. The NJ Judiciary specifically provided the names of the following non-party individuals: “All individuals named in Plaintiff's Complaint; Laura Schweitzer; Jennifer Sincox; Jennifer Carrion; Sonja Asante; Lori Grimaldi; Mary Isreal; Natalie Myers; Nicole May-Bynes; Sherifah Samsudeen; Kyle Francis; Vicki Dzingleski DiCaro; Kathy DeFuria; Lynsey Stehling, Esq.; David Yi, Esq.; Meryl Nadler, Esq.; and other individuals whose names appear in documents produced in the course of this litigation, answers to interrogatories, or discovery to be produced by either party.” (Id. at 3.) As the Court has repeatedly instructed: “In the event that Plaintiff requires information from non-parties, she may seek same by issuing subpoenas in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.” (Letter Order of 05/02/2023, at 3, Docket Entry No. 76; Letter Order of 11/13/2023, at 5-6, Docket Entry No. 87).
In light of the voluminous nature of Plaintiff's interrogatories, the information provided in response to Interrogatory No. 4, and this Court's prior discovery rulings, the Court holds that Plaintiff's interrogatory request—insofar as it demands additional information from the NJ Judiciary as to these non-parties—is burdensome, inefficient, duplicative, and contrary to the prior discovery rulings. (See discussion infra Part II.C-G (noting that the NJ Judiciary has produced responsive documents to requests seeking relevant information from individuals related to Plaintiff's claims)); see also Takacs, 2009 WL 3048471, at *1 (“[A] discovery request may be denied if, after assessing the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, the District Court finds that there exists a likelihood that the resulting benefits would be outweighed by the burden or expenses imposed as a consequence of the proposed discovery.”); see also Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir.1999)(“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly allow a district court to use its discretion and deny discovery requests if the material sought is “unreasonably cumulative.”)
Accordingly, Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 4 is DENIED. Again, the Court directs that if Plaintiff requires information from non-parties, she may seek same by issuing subpoenas in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.
C. Interrogatories Nos. 13, 27, 41, and 48
Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 13, 27, 41 and 48 request information regarding Plaintiff's claims of Disparate Treatment, Selective Enforcement and Retaliation. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., at 4; Docket Entry No. 96-2).
Interrogatory 13: Identify all documents made or received by Defendant Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC or any other person(s) which refer or relate to the subject matter of this litigation.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 4; Docket Entry No. 96-5). In its answers, the NJ Judiciary provides various documents and asserts that “Defendant produced all documents in their possession at the time of Defendant's initial production that pertains to this request.” (Id.) In response, the NJ Judiciary more specifically stated that, “Subject to and without waiving [its] objections, documents responsive to this request may be found in the following: AOC 001-1940; Bonds.Discipline File 001-144; Bonds.Medical File.001-389; Bonds.Performance Documents.001-168; and Bonds.Personnel File.001-387.” (Id.) Defendant supplemented its response with an additional responsive document: AOC 1941-2849. (Id.) Defense counsel has certified that it has provided and identified all responsive documents within its possession to Plaintiff, insofar as they pertain to the request.
Absent credible evidence demonstrating that Defense counsel's representations are inaccurate, the Court will accept same as true. See Greene, 484 F.App'x at 686; see also Reckitt Benckiser Inc., 2011 WL 4962221, at *8. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory 13 is DENIED.
*9 Interrogatory 27: Please identify any and all communications that any agent or employee of Defendant Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC had with Plaintiff or any other person, relating to any reports or complaints that Plaintiff made to Defendant Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC (whether formal or informal), during the Plaintiff's employment (including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's reports and complaints of discrimination and/or harassment in Defendant Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC's workplace), including but not limited to Lawrence Bethea; Vicki Dzingleski DiCaro; Ann Rizzi; Greg Edwards; Natalie Myers; Eva Carmichael; Stefanie Bose; Jennifer Sincox; Lori Grimaldi; Judith Arik; Terri Besky; Janine Abdalla; Christine McGrath-Kravetsky; Laura Sutton; Christina Reichardt; Alfonso Williams; Mary Israel; Jeanine Fuhrman; Shirley Scott; Chantel Powell; Shaakirah Thornton; Kathie DeFuria; Donna Roach; Andrea Poland; Nicole May-Bynes; Susan Campbell; Dawn Brevard-Water; Jorge Sanchez; Jennifer Carrion; Calvin Fisher; Lindsay Mcelhaney; Annamarie Guedes; Anna Cotton; Laura Schweitzer; Joel Narvaez; Charles Hager; Denise Ann Thomas; Christopher Kuberiet; David Yi; John Pushko; Judge Deborah Venezia; Judge Michael Toto; Judge Colleen Flynn; Judge Alberto Rivas; Marilyn Zimmerman; Jack Konathappally; Kyle Francis; Greg Lambard; Peggy Doherty; Elaine Malanga; Sonja Asante and the AOC employees Steven Bonville; Bobby Battle; Glenn A; Grant; Travis L Francis; Linda Repici; Janet Share Zatz; JoAnne Watson; Meryl Nadler; Tonya Hopson; Thomas Garrity; Steven Livingston; Monica Rodriguez; Lauren Benatti-Smith; Suvarna Sampale; Alexandra Battey; Caroline Bielak; John Johnson; Marissa Quigley; and Deirdre Hartman
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 14-15; Docket Entry No. 96-5). Despite its objections, the NJ Judiciary has produced responsive documents related to Interrogatory No. 27, representing that it has already produced all responding documents in its possession. (Id. at 15.) More specifically, the NJ Judiciary stated:
[D]efendant produced all documents in their possession at the time of production responsive to this request. Defendant restates all previous objections, refers to their previous answer and amends their answer to include the following documents: AOC 1941-2849; AOC 2850-2855. Defendant reiterates they have produced all responsive communication in their possession that was included in all of Plaintiff's personnel, discipline, performance and EEO files at this time. As previously advised, Defendant has not conducted any electronic email search. As Defendant has also previously advised in numerous answers and responses, if the propounding party wishes that Defendant undertakes an electronic search for additional emails that may be responsive to any requests, the parties must first confer and agree on search protocols, parameters and custodian names.
(Id. at 16.) The Court shall credit Defense counsel's representations absent evidence challenging the veracity of same.
Further, Plaintiff's continued failure to confer with Defense counsel regarding an ESI protocol concerning electronic mail searches, despite ample opportunity to do so, militates against granting Plaintiff's request. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii) (stating that “the court may limit discovery if ... the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought.”). Notably, the Federal Rules and Local Civil Rules of this jurisdiction require parties to confer in a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes prior to seeking compulsion of discovery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) (stating motions to compel discovery “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.”); see also L.Civ.R. 37.1(a)(1) (imposing obligation on parties to confer to resolve any discovery dispute prior to presenting it to the Magistrate Judge); see also L.Civ.R. 37.1(b) (stating “[d]iscovery motions must be accompanied by an affidavit, or other document ... certifying that the moving party has conferred with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court and the parties have been unable to reach agreement.”). The purpose of the ESI Protocol is to avoid wasting time and resources in the production of documents that are privileged. Plaintiff has failed to explain and/or address her past and continuing failure to confer with the NJ Judiciary regarding an ESI protocol to govern discovery in this action; discovery that was initially propounded in 2021 and discussed during the January 18, 2023, discovery conference. Considering the foregoing, to compel the NJ Judiciary to further respond would contravene principles of discovery.
*10 To the extent that Plaintiff wishes the NJ Judiciary to conduct an electronic search for additional emails, within 7 days of the date of this Letter Order, Plaintiff is directed to contact Defense counsel to schedule a date/time to meet and confer regarding an ESI protocol. If Plaintiff fails to contact Defense counsel within the prescribed deadline, Plaintiff shall be precluded from seeking the requested discovery.
Interrogatory No. 27 includes communications, reports, or complaints related to approximately 70 non-parties. The Court finds said scope to be overbroad. Defendant's objections as to the Attorney-Client Privilege, Repetitive, Time Frame, Ambiguity, Confidentiality, and ESI Objections are preserved. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 15; Docket Entry No. 96-5). Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 27 is DENIED.
Considering the foregoing, the NJ Judiciary need not respond to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, as the Court finds same to be duplicative, burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Plaintiff's application to compel the NJ Judiciary to respond to her Second Set of Interrogatories is DENIED.
Interrogatory 41: Please explain if there are any documents or anything similar that Middlesex Vicinage to the AOC to review the performance of a Middlesex Vicinage the AOC.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 27-28; Docket Entry No. 96-5). Plaintiff contends that Interrogatory No. 41 relates to her disparate treatment claim under Title VII. In order to prove a disparate treatment claim under Title VII, Plaintiff must show that: (1) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) [s]he is qualified for the position; (3) [s]he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.” Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205, 214 (3d Cir. 2008). Considering this test, it is unclear how performance reviews of Middlesex Vicinage, or documents of similar kind, are relevant to the Plaintiff's disparate impact claim. Plaintiff neither clarifies nor supports her request in her deficiency notice to Defendant's Answer and rather, simply states: “Deficient. The Court waived the 25 Interrogatory limit 2 years ago. The Court instructed on 1/18/23 that you had to provide an answer.” (Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 28; Docket Entry No. 96-5). As mentioned, “The party seeking discovery has the burden to show that the information it seeks is relevant. See Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154, 159 (D.N.J. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to do so. Additionally, absent from Plaintiff's interrogatory is a temporal framework. The Court thus finds Plaintiff's request to be overbroad. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 41 is DENIED.
Interrogatory 48, A: Identify and explain in detail any and all of Defendant's Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC rules, policies, guidelines and/or procedures in place during the relevant time period, the last nine (9) years, to be followed when an employee complains about and/or otherwise reports any discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation in the workplace at Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC. Please attach a copy of all rules, policies, guidelines and/or procedures identified in your answer to this interrogatory.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 32; Docket Entry No. 96-5). The NJ Judiciary, in its response to Document Production Nos. 38-40, has provided “the policies and procedures in effect when an employee complains about discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation (Bates labeled Documents: AOC 1672-1759; Bonds. AOC Policies 804-829 and NJ Courts websites: www.njcours.gov/sites/default/files/eeomanual.pdf and www.njcourts.gov.” (Id. at 33.) It would be duplicative to compel the NJ Judiciary to detail the policies and procedures, when same have been provide directly to Plaintiff by and through document production. If Plaintiff desires more information related to this request, she may explore same during depositions. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 48, Subpart A is DENIED.
*11 Turning to its other subparts, Interrogatory No. 48, Subparts B, C, and D state as follows:
Interrogatory 48, B: What did the complaint filed by Chantel Powell allege against Ann Rizzi?;
Interrogatory 48, C: When was the complaint filed?; and Interrogatory 48, D: Why was Ann Rizzi allowed to resign?
(Id. at 32.) In her deficiency notice, Plaintiff states:
[W]hat did the Complaint filed by Chantel Powell allege against Ann Rizzi, when was it filed and why was Ann Rizzi allowed to retire? Ann Rizzi was a major actor against the Plaintiff as spelled out in the Plaintiff's Complaint. If she was not disciplined for the same thing she disciplined the disciplined [sic] the Plaintiff for this is evidence of selective enforcement and race discrimination. Ann Rizzi is a manager. You must answer the question.
(Id. at 33.) In their deficiency response, the NJ Judiciary states, “As to the complaint filed by Chantel Powell against Ann Rizzi, Defendant objects to this request under the Relevant, Undue Burden, Time Frame and Personnel/EEO Confidential Record Objections.” (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the relevance of Interrogatory 48, Subparts B and C. More specifically, despite Plaintiff's notice, it is unclear how the complaint filed by Chantel Powell against Ann Rizzi—a former manager of Plaintiff—demonstrates and/or is relevant to Plaintiff's claims of selective enforcement and race discrimination.
Plaintiff's request also creates privacy concerns, which are implicated by the confidential nature of the requested personnel records. Plaintiff has not adequately addressed these concerns. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 48, Subpart B and C is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Within 14 days of the date of this Letter Order, Plaintiff is permitted to confer with Defense counsel regarding Interrogatory No. 48 to address the relevance and privacy concerns of Interrogatory No. 48, Subparts B and C.
As to Interrogatory No. 48, Subpart D, the Court finds that same calls for conclusions premised on speculative opinions from the NJ Judiciary. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 48, Subpart D is DENIED.
D. Interrogatories Nos. 30, 31, 32, and 33
Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33 request information regarding statistical and demographic information of the NJ Judiciary's employees. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., at 9; Docket Entry No. 96-2).
Interrogatory 30: With respect to all persons employed by NJ Judiciary as of January 17, 2012, please state: a. The total number of employees; b. The total number of Black or African-American employees (by way of self-identification if available, or through employment records or observer identification if self-identity is not available); c. The total number of white or Caucasian employees (by way of self-identification if available, or through employment records or observer identification if self-identity is not available); and d. The number of Black or African-American individuals employed as supervisors, managers, and/or executives. e. The number of white or Caucasian individuals employed as supervisors, managers, and/or executives.
*12 Interrogatory 31: With respect to all persons employed by Middlesex Vicinage as of January 17, 2012, please state: A. The total number of employees; B. The total number of Black or African-American employees (by way of self-identification if available, or through employment records or observer identification if self-identity is not available); C. The total number of white or Caucasian employees (by way of self-identification if available, or through employment records or observer identification if self-identity is not available); and D. The number of Black or African-American individuals employed as supervisors, managers, and/or executives; and E. The number of white or Caucasian individuals employed as supervisors, managers, and/or executives.
Interrogatory 32: With respect to all persons currently employed in the Criminal Division by Middlesex Vicinage, please state: A. The total number of employees; B. The total number of Black or African-American employees (by way of self-identification if available, or through employment records or observer identification if self-identity is not available); C. The total number of white or Caucasian employees (by way of self-identification if available, or through employment records or observer identification if self-identity is not available); and D. The number of Black or African-American individuals employed as supervisors, managers, and/or executives; and E. The number of white or Caucasian individuals employed as supervisors, managers, and/or executives.
Interrogatory 33: With respect to each and every person employed at NJ Judiciary from 2017-present, state: a. name; b. gender; c. race or ethnicity; d. start date; e. separation of end date; f. each rate of compensation; g. relevant training, education and experience; and h. quality or quantity of production with Defendant.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 19-22; Docket Entry No. 96-5). In its responses, the NJ Judiciary states: (1) at the time of its objections, Defendant had no responsive document(s) in its possession that related to Plaintiff's requests; (2) upon receipt of a responsive document, Defendant amended its discovery responses and provided the document—Bonds.AOC Workforce Analysis 001-185—to Plaintiff; (3) outside of the foregoing document, Defendant is unable to readily locate any additional information regarding Plaintiff's requests; and (4) given the overbroad, extensive nature of Plaintiff's requests, any further action regarding same would be unduly burdensome. (Id.)
The Court accepts Defense counsel's representations. Given that additional information is not readily available, the NJ Judiciary would be required to compile datasets from varying time periods and for every individual employed in Middlesex Vicinage and/or the NJ Judiciary's 15 vicinages—an overbroad and unduly burdensome endeavor. The burden or expense of the proposed discovery thus outweighs its likely benefit. Defendant's objections as to the Attorney-Client Privilege, Repetitive, Time Frame, Ambiguity, Confidentiality, and ESI Objections are preserved. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's responses to Interrogatories Nos. 30, 31, 32, and 33 is DENIED.
E. Interrogatories Nos. 36, 37, and 38
Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 36, 37 and 38 request information about alleged discrimination in job applicants. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., at 8; Docket Entry No. 96-2).
Interrogatory 36: With respect to each Black or African-American person that applied for a position of employment with NJ Judiciary in Middlesex County Vicinage, New Jersey between January 1, 2010 and the present, state the date(s) of their application and the position(s) that they applied for, whether the person was offered employment and/or hired by Defendant, and the reason(s) the person was not offered employment or hired by Defendant (if applicable).
*13 Interrogatory 37: With respect to each white or Caucasian person that applied for a position of employment with NJ Judiciary in Middlesex Vicinage, between January 1, 2010 and the present, state the date(s) of their application and the position(s) that they applied for, whether the person was offered employment and/or hired by Defendant, and the reason(s) the person was not offered employment or hired by Defendant (if applicable).
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 24-26; Docket Entry No. 96-5). The NJ Judiciary argues that further response to these requests is unwarranted, as: (1) the request is overbroad and would place an undue burden on Defendant since the information is not readily available and (2) after additional review, Defendant does not have information responsive to Plaintiff's requests. (Id.) Absent credible evidence demonstrating that the information is readily available or showing that Defense counsel's representations are inaccurate, the Court accepts Defense counsel's representations as true. The Court also finds Plaintiff's request to be overbroad, as it spans an extensive time period—including two years prior to Plaintiff's employment with the NJ Judiciary. The burden or expense of the proposed discovery therefore outweighs its likely benefit. Defendant's objections as to the Attorney-Client Privilege, Repetitive, Time Frame, Ambiguity, Confidentiality, and ESI Objections are preserved. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's responses to Interrogatories Nos. 36 and 37 is DENIED.
Interrogatory 38: Please describe in detail any and all steps or actions that were taken by all Defendants, during the period of Plaintiff's employment, to recruit, attract, and/or hire Black or African American employees to work at NJ Judiciary.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 26-27; Docket Entry No. 96-5). The NJ Judiciary argues that further response is unwarranted, as it has provided a responsive answer along with the responsive documents to Plaintiff's request. (Id.) The Court agrees. In response, the NJ Judiciary more specifically stated:
[S]ubject to and without waiving said objections, Responding Defendant is an equal opportunity employer and follows the principle of equal opportunity in its hiring and promotion practices. Responding Defendant encourages all qualified applicants to apply for open positions no matter their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. See the following policies that may be responsive to this request bates labeled as follows: AOC 1672-1674 (Policy Statement on Racial Discrimination and Retaliation); AOC 1675-1759 (EEO Master Plan & Appendices: Recruitment/Community Outreach Section (AOC 1708-1712) and HR and EEO interaction (page AOC 1726-1731). In further response, the Judiciary has detailed hiring protocols for managers and non-classified employees. EEO/AA officers expand the diversity of the applicant pools by allowing a job reposting to be reposted if the pool lacks diversity and by allowing the EEO/AA officers to review interview questions. EEO/AA officers also review all applications deemed “not qualified” for discrepancies. There are separate protocols for managers and staff recruitment/hiring which includes EEO's involvement.
(Id. at 26.) Considering Defendant has provided Plaintiff with documents detailing the NJ Judiciary's policies, protocols and plans to recruit, attract, and/or hire diverse applicants, any additional response would be duplicative and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 38 is DENIED.
F. Interrogatories Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 57
*14 Plaintiff's Interrogatories Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 57 request information regarding alleged comparators. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., at 6; Docket Entry No. 96-2).
Interrogatory 51: In the past nine (9) years, has Defendant Middlesex Vicinage received any internal complaint (whether oral or written, including but not limited to grievances), alleging that any current or former employee and/or applicant for employment was subjected to any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge, and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD? If Defendant Middlesex Vicinage's answer is in the affirmative, with respect to each and every such internal complaint made, please: A. Identify the person(s) who made the internal complaint; B. State the date the internal complaint was made or received by Defendant; C. Identify the person(s) who received the complaint; D. Describe the complaint or allegations made (and attach a copy of the same); E. Describe any investigation or remedial action by Defendant on the basis of the internal complaint; F. Describe the resolution or outcome of the complaint; and G. Identify the person(s) responsible for resolving the internal complaint.
Interrogatory 52: In the past nine (9) years, has any charge or complaint been made or filed against Defendants Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC with any federal, state and/or local government agency alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge, and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD? If Defendant's Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC answer is in the affirmative, with respect to each and every such charge or complaint made, please: A. Identify the person(s) who made or filed the charge or complaint; B. State the date the charge or complaint was made or filed; C. State the name of the agency where the charge or complaint was made or filed; D. Describe the charges or allegations made (and attach a copy of the filed charge or complaint); E. Describe any investigation or remedial action by Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court on the basis of the charge or complaint; F. Describe the resolution or disposition of the charge or complaint; and G. Identify the person(s) responsible for resolving the charge or complaint.
Interrogatory 53: In the past nine (9) years, has any lawsuit or legal action been made or filed against Defendant Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC in federal or state court alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge, and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD? If Defendant's Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC answer is in the affirmative, with respect to each and every such lawsuit or legal action, please: A.Identify the person(s) who filed or initiated the lawsuit or action; B. State the date the lawsuit or action was filed or initiated; C. State any docket number or other identifying number of the lawsuit or action; D. State the name of the court(s) in which the lawsuit or action was commenced or venued; E. Describe the allegations made (and attach a copy of the filed complaint); F. Describe any investigation or remedial action by Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court on the basis of the lawsuit or action; and G. Describe the outcome or resolution of the lawsuit or action.
*15 Interrogatory 54: Identify any other statement, grievance, complaint, charge, arbitration, lawsuit or other legal or administrative action that has ever been filed or otherwise made against Defendant Middlesex Vicinage and the AOC alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge, and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD.
Interrogatory 56: Please identify all legal actions in which Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court is presently a named party and/or otherwise involved.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 37-44; Docket Entry No. 96-5). In responding to Requests for Production requesting the same information, the NJ Judiciary has provided responsive documents to this interrogatory, including EEOC complaints alleging discrimination or harassment. In response to Request for Production No. 58, the NJ Judiciary stated:
[D]efendant amends with the following EEO Complaints and Grievances involving Plaintiff Bonds and Plaintiff Christopher in the State matter (SOM-L-1228-21): and amends with the following EEO Complaints and Grievances involving Plaintiff Bonds and Plaintiff Christopher in the State matter (SOM-L-1228-21):
- 12/11/13 Bonds filed an EEO Complaint against Annamaria Guedes. See documents produced by Plaintiff bates labeled as 366-367.
- 12/23/13 Bonds filed an EEO Complaint against Ms. DiCaro and Ms. Rizzi. An investigation was conducted and TCA Gregory Edwards found that the evidence did not substantiate Plaintiff's allegations of discrimination in violation of the Judiciary policy. Bonds appealed the decision. Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, Glenn Grant, J.A.D., found nothing in the records to support Bonds’ claims and upheld TCA Edwards’ conclusion that the Respondents did not violate the EEO/AA Policy. See documents bates labeled as AOC 1583; 1944-1945; 1952-1656.
- 7/30/14 A grievance was filed by the Union on behalf of Chantel Powel against Plaintiff Bonds for harassment, disrespectful behavior, retaliation and false accusations which have all led to a hostile work environment. See documents bates labeled as AOC 2519-2520.
- 8/21/14 Bonds filed an EEO Complaint (11/18/14 Amended) against Ms. DiCaro and Ms. Rizzi and Mr. Edwards for retaliation. An investigation was conducted and The Honorable Travis Francis found that the evidence did not substantiate Plaintiff's allegations of retaliation in violation of the Judiciary policy. See documents bates labeled as AOC 1583; 2212-2217; 2236-2261; 2262-2266.
- 3/5/18 Bonds filed an EEO Complaint alleging discrimination based on race, color and ancestry. See documents produced by Plaintiff bates labeled as 342-343.
- 12/18/18 The union filed a Grievance on behalf of Plaintiff Bonds. Bonds alleged that the hearing officer directed Plaintiff Bonds to appear for a previously scheduled minor discipline hearing on 12/19/18 although Plaintiff Bonds was approved to utilize a sick day for Flu symptoms. The union alleged failing to adjourn the hearing for good cause shows lack of mutual respect. The matter settled on or about 2/7/19 and the parties agreed that parties may request consent to adjourn a discipline hearing due to personal illness. If management has a good faith reasonable effort to believe the party is not ill, management may request a doctor's note. The decision on whether or not to grant an adjournment is to be made by the Hearing Officer based on good cause and shall not be unreasonably denied. See documents bates labeled as AOC 2850-2855.
- *16 2/18/20 Bonds filed an EEO Complaint alleging discrimination based on race, color and disability and was subject to retaliation. An investigation was conducted and Officer Hopson found that the evidence and investigation did not substantiate Plaintiff's allegations of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Judiciary policy. Bonds appealed the decision. Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, Glenn Grant, J.A.D., found nothing in the records to support Bonds’ claims and upheld Officer Hopson's conclusion that the Respondents did not violate the EEO/AA Policy. See documents bates labeled as AOC 2668-2669; 2661-2664; 2839-2849.
- 10/15/13 Plaintiff Christopher filed an EEO Complaint against Ms. Adamkiewicz alleging retaliation. An investigation was conducted and TCA Gregory Edwards found that the evidence did not substantiate Plaintiff's allegations of retaliation and disparate treatment. See documents bates labeled as Christopher.2013 EEO File 001-262.
- 2/25/14 Plaintiff Christopher filed an EEO Complaint against Ms. Adamkiewicz alleging retaliation. An investigation was conducted found that the evidence did not substantiate Plaintiff's allegations. See documents bates labeled as Christopher.2013 EEO File 001-262.
- 0/25/18 Plaintiff Christopher filed an EEO Complaint against Ms. Adamkiewicz alleging discrimination based on color and retaliation. An investigation was conducted found that the evidence did not substantiate Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff Christopher filed an appeal. Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, Glenn Grant, J.A.D., found nothing in the records to support Christopher's claims and upheld Officer Hopson's conclusion that the Respondents did not violate the EEO/AA Policy. See documents bates labeled as Christopher.2018 EEO File 001-382; and Christopher. 2020 EEO File 278-283; 418-422.
- 8/25/20 EEO Letter submitted by Attorney Desha Jackson, Esq., on behalf of Plaintiff Christopher alleging discrimination and retaliation. An investigation was conducted and found that the evidence did not substantiate Plaintiff's allegations. See documents bates labeled as Christopher. 2020 EEO File 001-422.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 63-65; Docket Entry No. 96-5).
In response to Request for Production No. 59, the NJ Judiciary stated:
Defendant amends with the EEOC Complaints filed by Plaintiff Bonds:
- October 2014 EEOC Complaint (524-2014-01179) alleging harassment, racial discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC was unable to conclude that the information established a violation of the statutes. See documents produced by Plaintiff bates labeled as 005-007; 413
- 8/2018 EEOC Complaint (524-2018-01977) alleging discrimination. The EEOC was unable to conclude that the information established a violation of the statutes. See bates labeled documents AOC 1587-1588 and documents produced by Plaintiff bates labeled as 068; 070; 131-158
- Defendant amends with the EEOC Complaint by Plaintiff Lane in the State matter (SOM-L-1228-21):
- 12/2019 EEOC Complaint (524-219-01353) alleging retaliation and disability discrimination. On 12/9/19 EEOC sent a letter to Plaintiff Lane that she needs to sign her EEOC complaint and resubmit within 30 days or the Complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff is in possession of responsive documents produced and bates labeled as 213-215.
- Defendant further amends that federal and state lawsuits are public information and refers the Plaintiff to the federal and state court websites.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 66-67; Docket Entry No. 96-5).
Additionally, federal and state lawsuits, and their corresponding documents, are publicly accessible. Considering the NJ Judiciary's discovery production to date, Plaintiff's wide-ranging discovery requests and the public availability of the information sought, it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require additional production from the NJ Judiciary. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 37-44; Docket Entry No. 96-5); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (stating that “the court may limit discovery if the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive). Additionally, as to Interrogatory No. 56, the Court finds same to be overbroad, as it facially includes legal actions that are unrelated to Plaintiff's present action. Accordingly, the Court finds that the NJ Judiciary's responses to be sufficient. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's responses to Interrogatories Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54 and 56 is DENIED.
*17 Interrogatory 57: Please identify all Caucasian employees in the Middlesex County Vicinage Criminal Division from 2012 until present who were charged with similar infractions as the Plaintiff was and the dispositions.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 44; Docket Entry No. 96-5). The NJ Judiciary argues that Plaintiff's request is vague, overbroad, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence to the case. (Id. at 5.) The Court agrees and finds that Interrogatory No. 57 is vague and ambiguous. Interrogatory No. 57—which extends over a span of nine years—fails to sufficiently detail or define the requested information. In objecting to Interrogatory No. 57, Defense counsel remarks that Plaintiff was charged with several infractions during her time as an employee of the NJ Judiciary; Plaintiff acknowledges same. (Id. at 45, 76-77). Of note, Plaintiff's request neither references specific infractions nor defines the term “infraction.” Plaintiff thus fails to indicate how same is contemplated by Plaintiff for the purposes of the request, making the request burdensome, overbroad, and speculative to answer.[7] Notwithstanding this ambiguity, the NJ Judiciary interpreted Plaintiff's request as “if another Middlesex Criminal Division employee was ordered not to interfere in a case and then violated an order/directive to not interfere in a case and/or interfere in an official court hearing by coaching a witness while they were testifying under oath.” (Id.) Defense counsel certified that it has no knowledge of any prior instance of a Middlesex Criminal Division employee committing such violations. (Id.) The Court shall credit Defense counsel's certifications. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Interrogatory No. 57 is DENIED.
G. Requests for Production Nos. 34, 48, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, and 70
Finally, Plaintiff's Requests for Production Nos. 34, 48, 49, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, and 70 request information regarding alleged comparators and comparator evidence. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., at 13-15; Docket Entry No. 96-2).
Request for Production 34: Please provide any emails, conversations, and/or documentation that are about or refer to Plaintiff from Defendant NJ Judiciary Administrative Office of the Courts and Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage employees including but not limited to Lawrence Bethea, Vicki Dzingleski DiCaro, Ann Rizzi, Greg Edwards, Natalie Myers, Eva Carmichael, Stefanie Bose, Jennifer Sincox, Lori Grimaldi, Judith Arik, Terri Besky, Janine Abdalla, Christine McGrath-Kravetsky, Laura Sutton, Christina Reichardt, Alfonso Williams, Mary Israel, Jeanine Fuhrman, Shirley Scott, Chantel Powell, Shaakirah Thornton, Kathie DeFuria, Donna Roach, Andrea Poland, Nicole May- Bynes, Susan Campbell, Dawn Brevard-Water, Jorge Sanchez, Jennifer Carrion, Calvin Fisher, Lindsay Mcelhaney, Annamarie Guedes, Anna Cotton, Laura Schweitzer, Joel Narvaez, Charles Hager, Denise Ann Thomas, Christopher Kuberiet, David Yi, John Pushko, Judge Deborah Venezia, Judge Michael Toto, Judge Colleen Flynn, Judge Alberto Rivas, Marilyn Zimmerman, Jack Konathappally, Kyle Francis, Greg Lambard, Peggy Doherty, Elaine Malanga, Sonja Asante and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court employees Steven Bonville, Bobby Battle, Glenn A, Grant, Travis L Francis, Linda Repici, Janet Share Zatz, JoAnne Watson, Meryl Nadler, Tonya Hopson, Thomas Garrity, Steven Livingston, Monica Rodriguez, Lauren Benatti-Smith, Suvarna Sampale, Alexandra Battey, Caroline Bielak, John Johnson, Marissa Quigley, Deirdre Hartman, NJ.
*18 (Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 51; Docket Entry No. 96-5). The NJ Judiciary contends that it has provided all responsive communications in their possession, including all of Plaintiff's personnel, discipline, performance and EEO files. (Id. at 52.) In response, the NJ Judiciary specifically stated:
[D]efendant restates all previous objections and responses and amends their answer to include the following documents recently supplemented: AOC 1941-2849; AOC 2850-2855. Defendant reiterates they have produced all responsive communication in their possession that was included in all of Plaintiff's personnel, discipline, performance and EEO files at this time. As previously advised, Defendant has not conducted any electronic email search. As Defendant has also previously advised in numerous answers and responses, if the propounding party wishes that Defendant undertakes an electronic search for additional emails that may be responsive to any requests, the parties must first confer and agree on search protocols, parameters and custodian names.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 52; Docket Entry No. 96-5). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defense counsel’ representations are somehow inaccurate. Therefore, the Court shall accept same as true. Further, as mentioned, Plaintiff's lack of cooperation with Defense counsel regarding an ESI protocol strikes against granting Plaintiff's request to compel the NJ Judiciary to further respond to the request. (See discussion supra Part II.C). Therefore, Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Request for Production No. 34 is DENIED.
Request for Production No. 48 states as follows:
Request for Production 48: Please provide all Middlesex County Vicinage Criminal Division Probationary period evaluation for all newly hired staff including but not limited to Lionel Neal, Geovanna Fiallos, Rose Goepfert, Lissette Familia, Kenette Johnson, Fiona Corcoran, Justin Ortiz, Kristin Boniface, and Klarissa Perry in the Criminal Division from 2010 until 2020.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 56; Docket Entry No. 96-5). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the request. In her deficiency notice, Plaintiff states: “Deficient. The Defendants must answer. Plaintiff is suing for disparate treatment. If other in similarly situated positions are being treated differently[,] the Plaintiff is entitled to know that. You must answer.” (Id. at 56.) However, absent from Plaintiff's request is any indication that the named individuals are in fact similarly situated.
“To be deemed similarly situated the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it.” Mosca v. Cole, 384 F.Supp.2d 757, 766 (D.N.J.2005); Ewell v. NBA Properties, Inc., 94 F.Supp.3d 612, 624-25 (D.N.J. 2015) (citation omitted).
As courts in this jurisdiction instruct, “to be considered ‘similarly situated,’ comparator employees must be similarly situated in all of the relevant aspects.” Wilcher v. Postmaster Gen., 441 F.App'x 879, 882 (3d Cir. 2011); see Red v. Potter, 211 F.App'x 82, 84 (3d Cir. 2006) (stating that “in order to show that an employee is ‘similarly situated,’ all of the relevant aspects of employment need to be nearly identical.). In determining whether an individual is similarly situated, courts consider, “whether the plaintiff and the comparator had similar job responsibilities, were subject to the same standards, worked for the same supervisors, and engaged in comparable misconduct.” Wilcher, 441 F.Appx. at 882; McCullers v. Napolitano, 427 F.Appx. 190, 195 (3d Cir.2011); see Grassmyer v. Shred–It USA, Inc., 2010 WL 3330102 (3d Cir.2010) (finding that male employees were similarly situated to female plaintiffs in a gender discrimination case where the male employees were employed during the same period as plaintiffs, held the same position, had the same supervisors, and also failed to meet their sales quotas); see also Geaney v. Computer Scis. Corp., 2005 WL 1387650, at *4 (D.N.J.2005) (stating similarly situated to mean individuals who (1) dealt with the same supervisor, (2) have been subject to the same standards, and (3) have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it).
*19 Plaintiff has proffered no evidence and/or arguments establishing or suggesting that the named individuals had similar job responsibilities, were subject to the same standards, worked for the same supervisors, and/or engaged in comparable misconduct. Nor has Plaintiff provided any rationale for why or how she arrived at the purported comparators she has selected. “The party seeking discovery has the burden to show that the information it seeks is relevant.” See Caver, 192 F.R.D. at 159. Plaintiff has not done so.
The Court also finds that Plaintiff's request is overbroad—extending over a period of ten years and facially including individuals irrelevant to this action—and gives rise to privacy concerns. Specifically, these privacy concerns arise from the confidential nature of the requested personnel records. Plaintiff has not adequately addressed these concerns.
Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Request for Production No. 48 is therefore DENIED.[8] Within 14 days of the date of this Letter Order, Plaintiff is permitted to confer with Defense counsel regarding Request for Production No. 48 to address its relevance, scope, and privacy concerns.
Request for Production No. 49 states as follows:
Request for Production 49: Please provide all performance evaluations for all staff in the Criminal Division for 2012 until 2021.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 57; Docket Entry No. 96-5). The Court finds that this request is duplicative, vague and overbroad, as it facially includes: (1) the same information requested in Request for Production No. 48; (2) performance evaluations of NJ Judiciary Criminal Division staff in all vicinages of the NJ Judiciary; and consequently, (3) performance evaluations of NJ Judiciary Criminal Division staff that work or have worked in unrelated and different capacities relative to Plaintiff, placing them outside the scope of discoverable material in the present action. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Request for Production No. 49 is DENIED.
*20 Requests for Production Nos. 58, 59, 60, and 61 state as follows:
Request for Production 58: Any and all documents concerning and/or relating to any and all internal complaints made by any current and/or former employee(s) of Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court(whether oral or written, including but not limited to grievances), in the past nine (9) years, alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD. This request specifically includes but is not limited to, any and all documents evidencing, describing, summarizing, and/or otherwise relating to any investigation conducted by Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court concerning such allegations or any other action taken by the Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court in response to such internal complaints.
Request for Production 59: Any and all documents concerning and/or relating to any and all charges or complaints filed against Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court with any federal, state, and/or local government agency, in the past nine (9) years, alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD. This request specifically includes but is not limited to, any and all charges or complaints, pleadings, amended pleadings, orders and motions filed, discovery produced by any party, deposition transcripts, investigative notes, communications exchanged between the parties, and settlement agreements.
Request for Production 60: Any and all documents concerning and/or relating to any and all lawsuits filed against Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court in state or federal court, in the past nine (9) years, alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD. This request specifically includes but is not limited to, any and all pleadings, amended pleadings, orders and motions filed, discovery produced by any party, deposition transcripts, investigative notes, communications exchanged between the parties, and settlement agreements.
Request for Production 61: Any and all documents concerning and/or relating to any and all arbitration proceedings against Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court, in the past nine (9) years, alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD. This request specifically includes but is not limited to, any and all demands for arbitration, pleadings, amended pleadings, orders and motions filed, discovery produced by any party, deposition transcripts, investigative notes, communications exchanged between the parties, and settlement agreements.
*21 (Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 62, 65-68; Docket Entry No. 96-5). For the same reasons set forth above in discussing Interrogatories Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, and 57, the Court is satisfied with the NJ Judiciary's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 58, 59, and 60. (See discussion supra Part II.F). In light of the production to Requests for Production Nos. 58, 59, and 60, the Court finds Request for Production No. 61 overbroad and duplicative, where the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Requests for Production Nos. 58, 59, 60, and 61 is DENIED.
Request for Production 62: Any and all documents concerning and/or relating to any other legal or administrative actions taken against Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court, in the past nine (9) years, alleging any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD. This request specifically includes but is not limited to, any and all demands for arbitration, pleadings, amended pleadings, orders and motions filed, discovery produced by any party, deposition transcripts, investigative notes, communications exchanged between the parties, and settlement agreements.
Request for Production 63: Any and all other documents evidencing, describing, summarizing, and/or otherwise relating to any investigation conducted by Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court, or on Defendant's behalf, in the past nine (9) years, in response to any grievance, charge, complaint, or allegations of any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD by Defendant A) Please provide the EEOC complaint filed by Chantel Powell against Ann Rizzi, including but not limited to the action taken by the Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court to investigate the complaint including the witness statements provide by Antonia Diaz, Linda Graft, Debbie Ayers, and Lisa Crothers B) Please provide the actions taken to investigate Greg Edwards including but not limited to the action taken by the Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court to investigate the complaint including the witness statements provide by PANJ members and Natalie Myers; C) Please provide the statement by Lionel Neal regarding the meeting that took place on 09/24/2014; D) Please provide the statement(s) given by Donna Levitt regarding the 5 day discipline in 2014.
Request for Production 64: Any and all other documents evidencing, describing, summarizing, and/or otherwise relating to any other action(s) taken by Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court, or on Defendant's behalf, in the past nine (9) years, in response to any grievance, charge, complaint, or allegations of any discrimination and/or harassment based on race, discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, unlawful retaliation, wage discrimination, constructive discharge and/or violation(s) of the NJLAD by Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 69-74; Docket Entry No. 96-5). For the reasons set forth above in discussing Requests for Production Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 61, the Court finds Requests for Production Nos. 62 and 64 to be overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome. As to Interrogatory No. 63 and despite its objections, the NJ Judiciary provided:
*22 63A. Defendant is not deficient and Defendant restates all previous objections.
63B. Defendant restates all previous objections and documents recently supplemented: AOC 2212-2656,
63C. Defendant restates all previous objections. Defendant is not in possession of a statement from Lionel Neal regarding a September 24, 2014 meeting. Defendant amends this response with the following statements from Lionel Neals dated October 28, 2014; December 8, 2014; December 9, 2014 and December 19, 2014 bates labeled as follows: AOC 1338; 1391; 2412-2416; 2536-2538; 2608-2611.
63D. Defendant restates all previous objections. Defendant is not in possession of a statement from Donna Leavitt from a July 9, 2014 meeting. Defendant amends this response with a summary of a statement Williams took from Donna Leavitt bates labeled as follows: AOC 2313.
(Id. at 73.) For the reasons set forth above in discussing Interrogatory No. 48, Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Request for Production No. 63, Subpart A is denied. The Court is satisfied with the NJ Judiciary's response to Request for Production No. 63, Subparts B, C, and D, as responsive documents have been provided to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Requests for Production Nos. 62, 63, and 64 is DENIED.
Request for Production No. 65 states as follows:
Request for Production 65: Any and all Employer Information Reports (“EEO-1” reports) filed by Defendant Middlesex County Vicinage and NJ Judiciary Administration of the Court during the relevant time period.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 74; Docket Entry No. 96-5). To note, Plaintiff neither defines nor specifically identifies “Employer Information Reports (‘EEO-1’).” Nonetheless, it appears that this request is moot.
In her deficiency notice, Plaintiff states:
Deficient. Employer Information Reports are relevant and must be turned over based on the nature of the claim of discrimination and hostile work environment. Plaintiff is entitled to know how many complaints were filed and for what. You must answer. How others are treated in similarly situated employees [sic] are relevant and will lead to admissible evidence. You must answer. Relevant time period is during the Plaintiff's employment.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 75; Docket Entry No. 96-5). In response, Defense counsel provides, “[D]efendant amends their answer that to [sic] the EEO-1 report is a report the Civil Service Commission submits to the federal government. Upon information and belief, this report does not include information on discrimination or hostile work environment claims.” (Id.) The Court agrees.
Pursuant to Title VII and Executive Order 11246, private employers and federal contractors who satisfy specific employer requirements[9] have a mandatory obligation to submit and certify annual EEO-1 Component 1 report(s) containing required workforce demographic data—including the number of individuals they employ by job category, sex, race, and/or ethnicity—to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).[10] See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1602.7; see also Exec. Order No. 11246 (Sept. 24, 1965). The EEO-1 report includes workforce demographic data; it does not include information concerning discrimination or hostile work environment claims. See Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Dep't of Lab., 424 F.Supp.3d 771, 777 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (stating “[t]he EEO-1 reports require federal contractors to furnish the composition of their workforce broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, and general job category ... [T]here is no salary information, sales figures, departmental staffing levels, or other identifying information in these reports. Rather, the diversity reports merely disclose the workforce composition to ensure compliance with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits employment discrimination by federal contractors”).
*23 Plaintiff, as indicated by her deficiency notice, seeks complaints pertaining to discrimination and/or a hostile work environment; complaints that were produced in response to Requests for Production Nos. 58 and 59. Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 65 is thus irrelevant and moot. Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of the NJ Judiciary's response to Requests for Production No. 65 is DENIED. In the event that Plaintiff is referring to a different EEO-1 report, the parties are directed to confer regarding same.
Requests for Production Nos. 67, 68, 69 and 70 state as follows:
Request for Production 67: Any and all documents of disciplinary charges and final disposition similar to all of the charges against the Plaintiff of all Caucasian employees who worked with the Plaintiff in the Criminal Division from 2012 to present.
Request for Production 68: Any and all documents of disciplinary charges and final disposition similar to all of the charges against the Plaintiff of all Caucasian employees who worked at the Middlesex County Vicinage during Plaintiff's tenure from 2012 to present.
Request for Production 69: Any and all documents of Caucasian employees who were reprimanded for same or similar charges received by the Plaintiff from 2012 to present in the Criminal Division.
Request for Production 70: Any and all documents of Caucasian employees who were reprimanded for same or similar charges received by the Plaintiff from 2012 to present at Middlesex County Vicinage.
(Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 75-77; Docket Entry No. 96-5). For the same reasons set forth above in discussing Interrogatory No. 57, the Court finds that Requests for Production Nos. 67, 68, 68, and 70 are fatally vague and ambiguous. (See discussion supra Part II.F). Similar to Interrogatory No. 57, the Court finds that Plaintiff's requests are burdensome, overbroad, and speculative to answer. Defendant's objections as to Absence of Control, Repetitive, Time Frame, Confidentiality, and Relevancy are preserved.
Plaintiff's application as to the sufficiency of Defendant's response to Requests for Production Nos. 67, 68, 68, and 70 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
In lieu of a formal motion, the parties outlined the substance and scope of this discovery dispute via electronic submissions to the Court on November 30, December 1, and December 21, 2023, respectively. Having fully considered the parties’ positions and arguments raised therein, and to prevent any further delay to their discovery efforts, the Court finds this matter is now ripe for review.
The Court notes that on October 31, 2023, the Honorable Georgette Castner, U.S.D.J. entered a Memorandum Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 63) of the Court's February 23, 2023, Order (Docket Entry No. 62) dismissing Counts Six and Seven of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Docket Entry No. 85). As a result, the New Jersey Judiciary remains the sole Defendant in the case.
Given the scope of this Letter Order, the Court refrains from expounding on the specifics of the discovery dispute. A more thorough recitation of the discovery dispute can be found in the Court's May 2, 2023, Letter Order (Docket Entry No. 76).
A subpoena served upon a third party may seek only (1) testimony, (2) the production of documents, electronically stored information or tangible things within the possession, custody or control of the witness, or (3) inspection of premises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).
To note, Plaintiff submitted the brief attached to her Motion to Compel Discovery as her supplemental brief. For ease of reference, the Court shall cite to Plaintiff's motion brief as listed on the docket.
Of note, in seeking this Court to compel Defendant to answer or further answer her discovery requests, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a transcript of the January 18, 2023, discovery conference, despite Plaintiff's repeated citations to and arguments regarding the Court's instructions at the conference. (See, e.g., Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 19-23, 24-28, 52; Docket Entry No. 96-5) (arguing that the Court instructed Defense counsel to provide the relevant information for Interrogatories Nos. 30-33, 36-38, 41 and Request for Production No. 34 during the January 18, 2023). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the audio recording of the January 18, 2023, discovery conference in its entirety.
Upon review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, in same, fails to use the term “infraction” in any manner. (See generally Pl.’s Am. Compl.; Docket Entry No. 41).
In support of her request to compel discovery, Plaintiff relies on the cases of Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Civ. Action No. 10-6950, 2019 WL 3294145, (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2019) and Khazarian v. Gerald Metals, LLC, Civ. Action No. 16-1762, 2017 WL 11017747, (D. Conn. Nov. 9, 2017). In citing Chen-Oster, Plaintiff contends that, “A court should not deny a plaintiff comparator discovery before she even attempts to make a showing of discrimination.” (Pl. Mov. Br., at 16; Docket Entry No. 96-2). In citing Khazarian, Plaintiff contends that, “[A] court [should] not address the question of whether an individual is an appropriate comparator ... in the context of a discovery dispute.” (Id. at 6.) First, the Court notes that It is not bound by these decisions. Second, in contrast to Chen-Oster, Defendant here specifically objects that production would be burdensome. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., Ex. A, at 56; Docket Entry No. 96-5); see Chen-Oster, 2019 WL 3294145, at *2. Given the overbroad nature of the request, the Court agrees. Furthermore, in contrast to Khazarian, Plaintiff here has offered no arguments or information to lead the Court to surmise that the alleged comparators are similarly situated. See Khazarian, 2017 WL 11017747, at *1. Plaintiff has failed to make a basic showing that the information sought is relevant and proportionate. Finally, considering the overall voluminosity of Plaintiff's discovery requests in conjunction with Defendant's production to date, the Court finds that requested discovery is disproportionate to the specific needs of this case.
Given the analysis that follows, the Court refrains from detailing the specific requirements.
The Court notes that it is unclear if the EEO-1 report applies to the NJ Judiciary. See 29 C.F.R. § 1602.30-37 (regarding State and Local Government Information Report (“EEO-4 report”), which collects workforce demographic data for state and local governments). Given the analysis that follows, the Court refrains from expounding on this point.