Mir v. L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P.
319 F.R.D. 220
N.D. Tex.2016Background
- Mir, an engineer, filed an ADA discrimination suit after L-3 did not hire him following a 2011 interview; he previously applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2006 and has received benefits since then.
- During deposition, Mir admitted to inaccuracies in his Social Security disability application and related Adult Disability & Work History Report and acknowledged Allsup Inc. assisted in preparing those submissions.
- L-3 asserts Mir’s Social Security statements and benefits are relevant to its judicial estoppel defense and served requests asking Mir to sign (1) SSA-3288 (consent for release) and (2) an authorization for Allsup Inc. (the “Releases”).
- Mir refused, arguing Rule 34 does not permit compelling a party to sign authorizations for nonparty records, and that the Releases are overbroad and irrelevant.
- The magistrate judge construed Rule 34 (with Rule 37) to permit compelling a party to sign authorizations for records that are within that party’s "control," found the requested releases relevant and proportional to L-3’s estoppel defense, and ordered Mir to sign the Releases by a specified date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 34 may be used to compel a party to sign authorizations/releases for nonparty records | Rule 34 only requires production of documents in a party’s possession/custody and cannot be used to force creation or signing of new documents; subpoenas (Rule 45) should be used | Rule 34 can properly request signed authorizations because parties control records that can be released by their consent; courts can compel signatures under Rule 34/37 where records are relevant and within the party’s control | Rule 34, read with Rule 37, can compel a party to sign authorizations for records that are within the responding party’s control (not creation of new documents) |
| Whether Mir has "control" over Social Security/Allsup records such that the Releases are permissible under Rule 34 | Mir lacks possession/custody/control of Social Security and Allsup records and L-3 should subpoena nonparties first | Mir can control release because records may be releasable only via his signed authorization; practical ability or legal right to permit release suffices as control | Mir was found to have sufficient control (practical ability/legal right to release) over the records sought via authorization, so Rule 34 applies |
| Relevance and breadth: whether the Releases seek information relevant and proportional to L-3’s estoppel defense | Releases cover materials (from 2006 onward) not tied to the 2011 hiring decision, are overbroad and not proportional | Social Security records (including past applications, updates, medical records, benefit history) could bear on whether Mir is judicially estopped; discovery need not prove the defense, only uncover relevant facts | The Court held the requested Releases seek relevant, non-overbroad information proportional to the estoppel defense and the needs of the case |
| Award of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5) after granting motion to compel | Mir sought to avoid being ordered to sign; requested exceptions to sanctions | L-3 sought expenses for having to bring motion to compel | Court denied fee shifting and ordered each side to bear its own expenses given the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir. 1990) (party resisting discovery must specifically show how each request is objectionable)
- McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1982) (discusses use of authorization forms; suggests Rule 34 may justify ordering a party to sign authorization under certain circumstances)
- Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Comm’ns Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (1991) (interpretation of procedural rules should consider plain meaning, structure, and sensible reading)
- Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (courts must limit discovery that is not proportional under Rule 26)
- Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2013) (federal rules are to be given their plain meaning in interpretation)
- Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (discusses proportionality and allocation of burden in discovery objections)