Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Centura Health
1:16-mc-00055
D. Colo.Apr 4, 2018Background
- EEOC issued an administrative subpoena (Dec 2014) to Centura Health seeking documents across multiple headings after receiving 11 discrimination charges (ADA, ADEA, Title VII) spanning six facilities.
- Centura produced some materials but refused items 1–9, 10(a), 11–12, 15(d), and 18; EEOC moved to compel compliance.
- This Court granted partial relief, ordering production for many items and referring disputed undue-burden issues (items 9, 11(b), 12(b), 15(d), 18(e)) to Magistrate Judge Shaffer.
- Before Judge Shaffer the EEOC narrowed its requests to items 9 and 18(e); Judge Shaffer found most burden objections unproven but modified scope to reduce employee-file searches and held the requests proportional under Rule 26(b)(1).
- Centura objected under Rule 72(a), largely re-arguing relevance and contending EEOC was pursuing a pattern-or-practice probe without issuing a formal pattern-or-practice charge; Centura also relied on a May 2, 2017 EEOC e-mail.
- District Judge Martínez reviewed under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard, overruled Centura’s objection, found the e-mail did not transform the case into a disallowed pattern-or-practice admission, and ordered production by May 4, 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of requested documents to EEOC investigation | Requests are relevant to investigating multiple ADA charges and employer practices | Requests seek pattern-or-practice discovery without a formal pattern-or-practice charge; therefore irrelevant | Court: Relevant; prior ruling stands (citing generous construction of "relevant" for EEOC investigations) |
| Undue burden / scope of production | Narrowed requests (items 9, 18(e)) are proportional and not unduly burdensome | Producing full scope would be unduly burdensome | Magistrate limited scope (reduced employee-file searches); District Court affirmed those modifications |
| Applicability of Rule 26(b)(1) proportionality limits to EEOC subpoenas | EEOC subpoenas are subject to Rule 26 proportionality via Rule 81(a)(5); requests are proportional | Argues proportionality bars systemic discovery absent formal pattern charge | Magistrate applied proportionality and found requests proportional; District Court did not disturb that application |
| Standard of review / motion to reconsider | EEOC: Magistrate’s nondispositive order should be upheld unless clearly erroneous or contrary to law | Centura re-argues relevance and treats issue as needing reconsideration; points to EEOC e-mail as new evidence | District Court applied Rule 72(a) standard; found Centura failed to meet clearly erroneous/contrary to law standard and that the EEOC e-mail did not change relevance analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (generous construction of "relevant" for EEOC investigations)
- Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458 (10th Cir. 1988) (description of the "clearly erroneous" standard)
- Nat'l Bus. Brokers, Ltd. v. Jim Williamson Prods., Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Colo. 2000) (standards for motions to reconsider)