Carr v. Double T Diner
272 F.R.D. 431
D. Maryland2010Background
- Discrimination claim under Title VII by plaintiff Carr alleging she resigned after manager Korologos sexually harassed her at a Double T Diner in Maryland.
- Question presented is whether TJL and related Double T Diner entities form an integrated enterprise/single employer for Title VII liability.
- Carr seeks discovery on ownership/management to support a single-employer theory, including depositions of Korologos, Jablon, and a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
- Defendants move for protective orders to limit Korologos and Jablon depositions and to narrow Rule 30(b)(6) scope.
- Court denies protective order as to Korologos and Jablon; grants in part and denies in part the protective order on the 30(b)(6) deposition, narrowing it to 2007 onward information only.
- Court notes potential for joining new parties if discovery supports a viable single-employer theory and requests good cause for scheduling-order modification
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Korologos may be deposed | Carr argues Korologos may have relevant knowledge of TJL’s corporate structure. | Defendants claim Korologos has no TJL employment/ownership and lacks personal knowledge. | Korologos deposition permitted; protective order denied. |
| Whether Jablon may be deposed as a fact witness | Carr needs Jablon’s knowledge of TJL’s harassment policy and centralized labor controls. | Attorney deposition risks privilege issues and may be duplicative if no unique knowledge. | Jablon deposition permitted as fact witness with privilege caveat. |
| Scope of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on ownership/financial structure | Carr seeks broad information to support single-employer theory and financial condition of TJL and related entities. | Scope overly broad and predating 2007 not relevant; information not reasonably available. | Scope narrowed to information from 2007 onward; topics 1, 2, and 4 and document request 3 limited; pre-2007 information excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., 192 F.R.D. 193 (N.D.W. Va. 2000) (broad discovery; relevance to discovery scope)
- Oppenheimer Fund Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1988) (scope of discovery and relevance)
- Etienne v. Mitre Corp., 146 F.R.D. 145 (E.D. Va. 1993) (relevance in discrimination cases)
- Tawwaab v. Virginia Linen Service, Inc., 729 F.Supp.2d 757 (D. Md. 2010) (liberal interpretation of ‘employer’ for Title VII; factors for single-employer test)
- N.F.A. Corp. v. Riverview Narrow Fabrics, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 83 (M.D.N.C. 1987) (deposing opposing party’s attorney; limits when information available from other sources)