United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MILES-LaGRANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery,
filed March 20, 2018. On April 10, 2018, defendants filed
their response, and on April 24, 2018, plaintiff filed his
reply. Based upon the parties' submissions, the Court
makes its determination.
worked for defendants, and in June 2014, plaintiff suffered a
heart attack and continued to suffer cardiac-related issues.
Plaintiff alleges that he sought accommodations, including a
reduced work load and time off work for cardiac
rehabilitation. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants
refused to reasonably accommodate him and further
discriminated against him by giving him lower evaluations,
write-ups for failing to attend work-related functions, and
requiring him to work even more hours. Plaintiff asserts that
defendants made his work environment so intolerable that he
was forced to resign, resulting in a constructive discharge.
Defendants deny they discriminated or retaliated against
November 27, 2017, plaintiff issued discovery to defendants.
On January 31, 2018, defendants responded. Plaintiff alleges
defendants' responses were deficient and now moves this
Court to compel defendants to supplement their responses to
Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production Nos. 6, 14,
18, and 32.
Interrogatory No. 4
No. 4 states:
Identify (defined as full name, last known home address, last
known home or cell phone number, work address, year of birth,
dates of employment and job title) each person who, during
any part of the period from January 1, 2014 to the present
was supervised (directly and/or indirectly) by
Plaintiff's first and second-in-line supervisors.
Williams WPC-I, LLC's Objections and Responses to
Plaintiff's Opening Discovery, attached as Exhibit 1 to
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery with Authority, at
11. In response, defendants state that they will produce
certain documents from which the information responsive to
the interrogatory can be obtained. Specifically, defendants
state that they will be producing the organizational charts
for employees reporting to Michael Stackhouse, Harvey
Stockman, Donald Ward Chase, and John Casto. Plaintiff
asserts that the organizational charts do not provide the
their response to plaintiff's motion to compel,
defendants state that they have supplemented their response
by identifying the personal contact information for current
non-supervisory employee Chase and the current titles, dates
of births, and employment tenure for all of plaintiff's
first and second-in-line supervisors that he had while
employed. Defendants, thus, contend that plaintiff's
motion to compel is moot as to Interrogatory No. 4.
carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court
finds that plaintiff's motion to compel is not moot as to
Interrogatory No. 4. That interrogatory seeks the identity
and contact information for persons who were supervised by
plaintiff's first and second-in-line supervisors, not the
identity and contact information for plaintiff's
supervisors. Further, the Court finds that Interrogatory No.
4 seeks relevant information and in their response,
defendants have not set forth any objection to the
information sought. Accordingly, the Court orders defendants
to fully respond to Interrogatory No. 4.
Request for Production No. 14
for Production No. 14 states:
Produce the “personnel documents” for the
A. All persons who, from January 1, 2013 through the present,
occupied the same and/or similar position as the Plaintiff
and/or performed the same and/or similar job duties as the
B. All persons who, from January 1, 2013 through the present,
were disciplined and/or terminated for the same and/or
similar reasons that Plaintiff was disciplined and/or
C. All persons who, from January 1, 2013 through the present,
made a complaint (internal and/or external) of disability
discrimination, disability-related retaliation, FMLA
retaliation and/or FMLA interference;
D. All persons who, from January 1, 2013 through the present,
were accused of engage [sic] in misconduct of equal or
greater seriousness than that ...