Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
276 F.R.D. 637
E.D. Wash.2011Background
- Wal-Mart moved to compel discovery in EEOC case alleging violation of Civil Rights Act and prayer for injunctive relief and damages.
- Case centers on whether Wal-Mart accommodated Richard Nichols’s Mormon Sunday-work abstention.
- EEOC filed First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2011 outlining requested remedies and damages.
- Court held a telephonic hearing on September 15, 2011; three discovery issues presented for ruling.
- Issues include disclosure of emotional distress/punitive damages computation, Nichols’ medical records, and identities related to the EEOC Compliance Manual.
- Court denied several aspects of Wal-Mart’s motion, but left open potential future requests for medical records and deposing relevant parties if new information emerges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must emotional distress/punitive damages be computed under Rule 26? | EEOC argues Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires computation and disclosure. | Wal-Mart contends numerical computation is required and should be supplemented. | Court denies computation requirement; damages are jury issues, but supplementation may limit specific amount at trial. |
| Whether medical records for Mr. Nichols must be produced | No medical records or expert testimony should be required for garden-variety emotional distress. | Records are relevant to emotional distress damages and discovery should be allowed. | Court declines to compel production of medical records; privilege and lack of cause limit disclosure. |
| Waiver of psychotherapist-patient privilege by claiming emotional distress | Garden-variety distress does not waive privilege. | Emotional distress claims waive privilege when mental condition is at issue. | Court adopts narrow approach; no waiver of Nichols’ privilege given garden-variety damages and lack of reliance on privileged material. |
| Identity of EEOC officials who drafted/approved the Compliance Manual | Information is irrelevant and privileged; discovery not allowed. | Needs identities to question authors regarding compliance guidelines. | Court denies discovery; deliberative-process privilege protects such information and limits relevance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to confidential clinical communications)