BROWN v. CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
1:20-cv-03661
D.D.C.Mar 22, 2022Background
- Brown, hired by Chemonics in 2014 at age 62, was terminated in March 2020 at age 67 after his Director position in the Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) unit was eliminated.
- Brown alleges age discrimination under the ADEA, claiming he was the only home-office director terminated and replaced by substantially younger staff.
- Chemonics says the termination was an LAC unit–specific budget decision: regional SVP Anne Spahr eliminated the Director post after regional budgeting changes.
- Brown filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue letter, and commenced this suit; discovery produced a dispute over production scope, burdens, and confidentiality.
- Key discovery disputes: (1) need for a protective order for confidential/commercial materials; (2) whether Chemonics can object to requests identical to ones it served on Brown; (3) whether companywide discovery (financials and age/hiring data) is proportional; and (4) several overbroad or nonexistent-document requests.
- Magistrate Judge Meriweather granted Chemonics’ proposed protective order, ordered Chemonics to produce materials withheld under that order within 14 days, denied Brown’s motion to compel, and denied as moot Brown’s motion for a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Chemonics’ discovery responses | Late objections waive them; compel due to delay | Responses were only a few days late and no pattern of misconduct; no prejudice | Court found no prejudice from 3–11 day delays; objections considered on merits |
| Protective order (Rule 26(c)) | Opposes burden of having to move to challenge confidentiality designations | Seeks umbrella protective order to guard commercial/confidential info (risk of competitive use via Brown’s consultancy) | Good cause found; court adopted Chemonics’ proposed protective order and denied moot portions of motion to compel |
| Estoppel from objecting to requests identical to those Chemonics served on Brown | Chemonics should be estopped from objecting where it previously requested same info from Brown and accepted his responses | Discovery is not quid pro quo; relevance/proportionality govern, not what prior requests sought | Court rejected estoppel theory; relevance and proportionality control |
| Companywide financial discovery | Companywide budgets needed to show pretext for LAC termination | Termination was LAC unit–specific after regional budgeting; companywide finances irrelevant | Companywide financials deemed irrelevant; LAC budget information (now producible under PO) sufficient |
| Companywide age/hiring/termination data | Companywide age/hiring/firing records show pattern/practice of age discrimination | Requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, disproportionate (5,000-employee company; extensive searches) | Age-related discovery is marginally relevant but companywide requests were disproportionate; limited LAC data and narrowed alternatives acceptable |
| Overbroad / nonexistent-document requests | Seeks broad informal communications, historic snapshots by date | Many requests seek documents outside defendant’s possession or require creation; others are overbroad | Court refused to compel responses beyond what Rule 34 requires; sustained burdens/objections for overbroad or non-existent document requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. District of Columbia, 289 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2012) (guidance on discovery disputes and proportionality)
- Alexander v. F.B.I., 193 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2000) (movant’s burden to show discovery relevance and opposing party’s burden to justify limitation)
- Alexander v. F.B.I., 186 F.R.D. 71 (D.D.C. 1998) (protective order good-cause standard)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (discovery scope and relevance principles)
- Caudle v. D.C., 263 F.R.D. 29 (D.D.C. 2009) (untimely discovery objections generally waived unless no prejudice)
- Doe v. District of Columbia, 248 F. Supp. 3d 186 (D.D.C. 2017) (example of protective order structure endorsed by the court)
- Hardrick v. Legal Servs. Corp., 96 F.R.D. 617 (D.D.C. 1983) (court will limit overbroad discovery to avoid inordinate expense)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (doctrine of judicial estoppel principles)
- United States v. Johnson, 314 F. Supp. 3d 248 (D.D.C. 2018) (discussed in context of protective orders, but court declined to apply its criminal-rule reasoning)