Brewster v. North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State
5:18-cv-00436
E.D.N.C.Mar 6, 2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Dierdra A. Brewster filed an employment discrimination suit against the North Carolina Secretary of State on September 7, 2018, alleging age and religious discrimination and retaliation and seeking lost wages and emotional distress damages (~$500,000).
- A Scheduling Order set discovery to close April 30, 2019; plaintiff sought amendments which were denied.
- Plaintiff moved (D.E. 19, 21, 25) for protective relief limiting access to her medical records, financial/bank records, and contact with her mother; she also moved for (D.E. 20) an extension to produce a damages computation and (D.E. 31) redaction of a notary public number in an exhibit.
- Defendant opposed the motions to limit discovery; did not oppose the extension motion. Plaintiff filed a reply.
- The court treated the protective requests as premature and procedurally defective for lacking the Rule 26(c) certification of conferral, and concluded medical and financial discovery is likely relevant because Brewster put her health and emotional distress at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should enter protective orders limiting production of plaintiff's medical records | Brewster sought to block or strictly limit access to medical records as confidential | Defendant opposed limiting access, arguing such records are discoverable when health is at issue | Denied: motions premature, procedurally deficient (no conferral), and medical records relevant because plaintiff claims emotional distress |
| Whether court should limit production of plaintiff's financial/bank records and prohibit contact with plaintiff's mother | Brewster asked for strict limits/prohibition | Defendant opposed; asserted relevance and need for discovery | Denied: no adequate showing to restrict these categories; denial without prejudice to future renewed motion with required conferral |
| Whether to extend time for production of computation of damages under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) | Brewster requested at least 90-day extension to produce damages computation and supporting materials | Defendant did not oppose | Allowed: extension granted; plaintiff ordered to produce required information by March 20, 2019 |
| Whether to redact a notary public number from an exhibit to the complaint | Brewster sought redaction as confidential information | Defendant opposed redaction | Denied: plaintiff failed to show the notary number is confidential warranting redaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, 842 F.3d 853 (4th Cir. 2016) (district court has broad discretion to determine relevance for discovery)
- Watson v. Lowcountry Red Cross, 974 F.2d 482 (4th Cir. 1992) (scope of discovery is broadly within district court discretion)
- Eramo v. Rolling Stone LLC, 314 F.R.D. 205 (W.D. Va. 2016) (party resisting discovery bears burden to establish legitimacy of objections)
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. ConvaTec Inc., 268 F.R.D. 226 (M.D.N.C. 2010) (party resisting discovery bears burden of persuasion)