223 F. Supp. 3d 575
N.D. Tex.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Shannon Gondola and Michelle Henshaw sued USMD for disability discrimination (ADA/TCHRA), FMLA interference/retaliation, and seek lost wages, benefits, medical costs, emotional damages, and attorneys’ fees.
- Defendant served interrogatories and requests for production (including various third‑party authorizations) after Plaintiffs’ employment separations; Plaintiffs served initial responses late and later served amended responses and produced some documents.
- Defendant moved to compel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, arguing Plaintiffs’ responses were deficient, objections were non‑specific, many requested documents/authorizations were not produced, and privilege assertions were unsupported.
- The magistrate judge heard argument, found some disputes moot based on Plaintiffs’ later productions, but identified numerous outstanding deficiencies and ordered supplemental responses/productions and specific authorizations by set deadlines.
- The court limited certain broad requests (e.g., “all documents”) to materials a party must disclose under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), required targeted social‑media meet-and-confer, and deferred a ruling on cost shifting under Rule 37(a)(5) pending supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of interrogatory and RFP responses (general objection practice) | Plaintiffs relied on initial disclosures and used boilerplate objections and “subject to/without waiving” language; later amended some responses | Responses were vague, non‑specific, produced late, and withheld authorizations; objections waived if not specifically supported | Court criticized “subject to/without waiving” practice, overruled improper objections in part, ordered specific amended responses and productions by set dates |
| Production of employment records and authorizations (RFP 35; employment auth.) | Plaintiffs offered limited redacted pay records and resisted producing employer identities or authorizations | Defendant sought full personnel records or authorizations to verify mitigation, pay, job duties, bonuses, after‑acquired evidence | Court ordered Plaintiffs to either sign limited employment authorizations or produce specified employment records; current employer identities must be disclosed but may not be contacted outside litigation |
| IRS/Social Security/Unemployment and other income discovery | Plaintiffs objected to tax/SS returns as intrusive and proposed W‑2s/pay stubs only; some authorizations produced by Gondola, not Henshaw | Defendant argued tax/SS/1099s and other income documents are relevant to damages and mitigation and W‑2s alone may be insufficient | Court required either signed IRS authorization or specified alternative documents (1099s, distributions, rental/self‑employment income) and Social Security auth or detailed interrogatory answers about disability benefits; ordered Henshaw to sign unemployment auth |
| Medical/psychotherapy authorizations and HIPAA protections | Plaintiffs produced some authorizations (Gondola) but resisted further medical/psych records disclosure | Defendant sought medical/psych records as relevant to disability and damages | Court ordered Henshaw to sign medical/psych authorizations or produce records with custodian certificates; required parties to submit a HIPAA‑compliant protective order by set date |
| Social media scope (RFP 43) | Plaintiffs objected as vague/overbroad and private | Defendant sought broad social media content related to claims and damages | Court limited scope: parties to meet and confer to narrow to posts/messages relevant to claims (mentions of Defendant, termination, job searches, effects of termination); file joint status report and proposed order |
| “All documents” / blockbuster requests (RFPs 25,45,46) | Plaintiffs argued overly broad, vague, would require decades of production | Defendant asserted relevance to allegations and damages | Court sustained objection in part and limited production to documents a party may use to support claims under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) |
| Request for expenses under Rule 37(a)(5) | Plaintiffs to explain why sanctions are unjustified | Defendant sought fees for bringing the motion to compel | Court deferred ruling and gave Plaintiffs opportunity to justify their conduct; allowed Defendant reply |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir. 1990) (party resisting discovery must specifically show why requests are objectionable)
- Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court may limit discovery as disproportionate under Rule 26)
- F.D.I.C. v. LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 1995) (tax returns are not privileged; two‑part test for compelling production discussed)
- Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (criticizing reflexive boilerplate objections and endorsing Rule 34 specificity requirements)
- Carr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 312 F.R.D. 459 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (analysis on applying amended Rule 26 proportionality factors)
- Merrill v. Waffle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 475 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (burden of proving undue burden requires affidavits or evidentiary proof)
- S.E.C. v. Brady, 238 F.R.D. 429 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (party claiming undue burden must present evidence of time/expense)