Pajak v. Under Armour, Inc.
1:19-cv-00160
N.D.W. Va.Jan 17, 2020Background
- Cynthia Pajak sued Under Armour, Under Armour Retail, and her supervisor Brian Boucher alleging wrongful discharge, WV Human Rights Act violations (gender discrimination/retaliation), negligent hiring/supervision, and emotional distress after termination on December 10, 2018.
- Case removed to federal court; parties exchanged discovery and filed cross-motions to compel and a motion for protective order; magistrate held a combined hearing January 14, 2020.
- Key disputed discovery topics: plaintiff’s medical/mental-health records; prior discrimination claims against Under Armour; employee counts in West Virginia (numerosity under WVHRA); personnel files, job descriptions, disciplinary records and separation agreements for certain employees; compensation/replacee information; Boucher’s job‑search materials; e-discovery search scope; insurance info; deposition scheduling for Boucher.
- Court applied federal discovery standards and West Virginia privacy precedent, balancing relevance for emotional-distress damages against confidentiality; ordered many disclosures subject to a protective order, limited temporal/geographic scope, and attorneys’-eyes-only restrictions.
- Deadlines: most ordered productions due within three weeks of the order (Feb. 7, 2020); certain scheduling and supplementation deadlines set earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production of plaintiff's medical/mental-health and pharmacy records (Interrog. 4–5; RFPs 8–9) | Pajak: request overbroad, seeks unrelated private health info, no treatment tied to claims. | Under Armour: medical history relevant to causation and extent of emotional-distress damages. | Court: Granted in part — medical/mental/pharmacy records discoverable from five years before termination (Dec 10, 2013) to present; authorization form not required; production under protective order and AEO restrictions. |
| Prior lawsuits/administrative claims for gender discrimination/harassment (Interrog. 7; RFP 35) | Pajak: prior similar claims show pattern, punitive damages support, and identify witnesses. | Under Armour: relevance objection; no geographic/scope limits; overbroad. | Court: Granted with limits — produce matters in North America, involving claims up to President of North America but not below District Manager, and limited to gender discrimination/sexual harassment (incl. retaliation/wrongful discharge). |
| Employee counts and identities in West Virginia (Interrog. 10; RFP 32) | Pajak: discovery needed to test interpretation of WVHRA numerosity (who counts as "employed within the state"). | Under Armour: info irrelevant; statute requires employing 12+ persons within state; identities unnecessary. | Court: Granted in part — ordered documents reflecting number of employees/contractors living in West Virginia in 2017–2018; denied need to produce identities of every employee/contract worker. |
| Personnel files, disciplinary records, job descriptions, severance (Interrog. 8; RFPs 24, 28, 50) | Pajak: files relevant to comparator evidence, complaints, investigations, and discipline for named supervisors. | Under Armour: privacy/ confidentiality of personnel files; relevance objections for some employees. | Court: Granted with limits — produce job descriptions and separation agreements; personnel/disciplinary records limited to sexual harassment, inappropriate workplace behavior, and performance evaluations; exclude medical, workers’ comp, beneficiary, and compensation info; production under protective order/AEO. |
| Compensation/replacee compensation and bonus policies (RFPs 16–17) | Pajak: relevant to front pay/future damages and expert analysis. | Under Armour: not relevant; front pay should be based on Pajak's past salary. | Court: Granted — ordered production; protected by existing protective order and expert handling. |
| Boucher's job-search/employment documents while employed at Under Armour (Interrog. 16; RFPs 33–35) | Pajak: Boucher encouraged her to leave and sought other jobs; evidence bears on credibility and motives. | Boucher: marginal relevance, tangential to claims. | Court: Granted — Boucher must produce responsive materials from June 2018 through December 2018. |
| Deposition timing for Boucher / Protective order (ECF No. 47) | Pajak: needs time to get discovery to prepare; scheduling conflict. | Boucher: had already arranged availability for noticed date. | Court: Granted protective order — deposition continued; parties to re-notice within one week and confer on dates. |
| E-discovery search terms/custodians & insurance disclosures (various RFPs) | Pajak: proposed broader terms/custodians to capture complainants and relevant communications. | Under Armour: plaintiff’s proposed list was unduly burdensome; used limited custodians and searches. | Court: Ordered Pajak to submit her proposed search terms/custodians to the court and directed parties to confer; ordered Under Armour to supplement initial disclosures with insurance info promptly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keplinger v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 537 S.E.2d 632 (W. Va. 2000) (medical records are protected but implied consent to release is limited to records related to condition placed at issue)
- Momah v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 164 F.R.D. 412 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (objections that discovery is overly broad/burdensome must be specific)
- Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1982) (boilerplate objections to discovery are inadequate)
- Coffin v. Bridges, 72 F.3d 126 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (recognition that mental state and medical records can be discoverable when emotional distress damages claimed)