Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scheller v. The Williams Companies, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

June 1, 2018

TYLER SCHELLER, Plaintiff,
v.
THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., and WILLIAMS WPC-I, LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER

          VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before 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.

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff 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 plaintiff.

         II. Discussion

         On 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.

         A. Interrogatory No. 4

         Interrogatory 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.

         Defendant 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 requested information.

         In 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.

         Having 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.

         B. Request for Production No. 14

         Request for Production No. 14 states:

Produce the “personnel documents” for the following persons:
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 Plaintiff;
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 terminated;
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.