Guster -Hines v. McDonald's USA, LLC
1:20-cv-00117
| N.D. Ill. | May 21, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Victoria Guster-Hines and Domineca Neal, former McDonald’s USA employees, allege race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and §1981 against McDonald’s Corporation, McDonald’s USA, and several executives.
- Plaintiffs sought to compel testimony from non-party witness James Collins, a former McDonald’s USA executive, about his knowledge relevant to their claims, despite Collins having confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements with McDonald’s USA that include substantial financial penalties for breach.
- Collins partially refused to answer certain deposition questions, citing risk of violating his agreements and facing serious financial penalties.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel Collins to answer all certified deposition questions and to bar McDonald's from seeking sanctions against him for providing testimony.
- The Court reviewed 55 certified questions divided into categories relevant to plaintiffs’ claims; Collins had already provided five hours of deposition and would be subject to further questioning limited to two hours.
- The Court balanced Plaintiffs’ need for information against Collins’s burden as a non-party under subpoena and partially granted and denied the motion, allowing some questions and denying others as overly broad, speculative, or unduly burdensome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Collins/McDonald's) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collins must answer all certified questions | Agreements do not confer privilege; info is relevant and protected | Testifying risks severe financial penalties; questions irrelevant | Motion granted in part; some questions allowed, others not |
| Whether McDonald’s can be barred from sanctioning Collins | Court should bar McDonald's from seeking sanctions for testimony | Plaintiffs have no standing; court lacks power to decide future disputes | Plaintiffs' motion denied; Court lacks authority |
| Whether Plaintiff may obtain confidential info over Collins’s objection | Confidentiality order suffices to protect Collins | Disclosure risk remains due to possible public evidence/admission | Confidentiality order not a shield to all penalties |
| Whether all question categories are permissible | Each set relevant to intent, impact, and retaliation claims | Many questions irrelevant, overbroad, or unduly burdensome | Only specific, narrowly tailored questions may be compelled |
Key Cases Cited
- McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2003) (establishes burden standard under Rule 45 for non-party subpoenas)
- Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2002) (distinguishes Rule 26 proportionality and burden considerations)
- Geiger v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 845 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 2017) (discovery discretion)
- Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Eng’rs., Inc., 755 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2014) (district judge discretion)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (addresses preliminary injunction standards and irreparable harm)