Martin v. Allstate Insurance
292 F.R.D. 361
N.D. Tex.2013Background
- Plaintiff alleges age discrimination under Texas law after being terminated from Defendant’s South Texas Property MCO as an outside claims adjuster.
- Plaintiff contends termination was due to unacceptable ERI survey results and supervisor-directed performance issues.
- Defendant moves for protective order on discovery and Plaintiff moves to compel; matter referred to magistrate judge.
- Court addresses Rule 26/37 discovery scope, including 30(b)(6) deposition topics, and production of documents within a defined time window.
- Rulings authorize limited discovery on comparators within the Texas CSA and related ERI/CRI surveys, and grant some depositions for Vaclavik and Kiehn.
- Courtney requires supplementation of production within 30 days and grants Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental index.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certain 30(b)(6) deposition topics are overbroad or irrelevant | Plaintiff seeks broader discovery on preservation, systems, and discovery responses as relevant to pretext. | Topics are overbroad, burdensome, and non-merits-based; seeks information not tied to ERI-related firing. | Topics 2-7 overbroad; some topics granted/denied as to scope; limited to relevance to ERI process and preservation. |
| Whether comparators from Texas CSA vs. South Texas Property MCO are discoverable | Comparator group includes all ERI-tested outside adjusters under same ultimate decisionmaker. | Comparators should be limited to South Texas Property MCO outside adjusters due to role differences. | Plaintiff entitled to discovery on Texas CSA comparators; broader group allowed given shared ERI and same ultimate decisionmaker. |
| Whether the Court should grant access to other surveys (CRI/ICSS) beyond ERI | Other surveys may show disparater treatment and support pretext; relevant to comparators. | Tempers scope to ERI; other surveys are not probative. | GRANTED to include ICSS/CRI surveys for comparative analysis; supplemental index allowed. |
| What is the proper time frame for discovery related to ERI/UPN and Texas CSA | Origins and evolution of ERI dating back to January 2008/2009 are relevant to motive. | Discovery should cover 2009-2011; broader fishing expedition disallowed. | Time-bound to January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011 for Exhibits and topics. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jepsen v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 610 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1980) (comparator discovery may be relevant to pretext.)
- Lee v. Kansas City So. Rwy. Co., 574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) (similarly-situated comparators require nearly identical circumstances.)
- Turner v. Kansas City S. Rwy. Co., 675 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 2012) (comparators may include employees with similar roles under same decisionmaker.)
- Marshall v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 576 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1978) (focus on employment unit when investigating discrimination.)
- Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., 610 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2010) (pretext evidence may show false or unworthy proffered reasons.)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Worldwide Ins. Mgmt. Corp., 147 F.R.D. 125 (N.D. Tex. 1992) (broad discretion to tailor discovery; deposition locations may vary.)
- Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins., 619 F.3d 1151 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 26(b)(2) limits fishing expeditions; tailor discovery narrowly.)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (scope of discovery must be tailored to avoid burdensome fishing expeditions.)
- Okoye v. Univ. of Tex. Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2001) (elements of age discrimination with evidence of similarly situated employees.)