Reuschel v. Chancellor Senior Management, Ltd.
5:22-cv-00279
S.D.W. VaJul 20, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs (executrices of two decedents) filed an intended class action alleging Chancellor Senior Management, Ltd. systematically understaffed four West Virginia assisted‑living facilities and misrepresented that staffing was based on residents’ assessed needs rather than corporate profit goals.
- Key discovery sought: facility daily staffing, resident assessment data/combined needs, occupancy/projections, staffing budgets and policies, and certain personnel records covering a four‑year period ending October 25, 2016.
- Defendant manages (but does not own) the facilities and produced exemplar documents; it contends many requested materials are held by non‑party owner‑operators, are confidential, or concern merits not class certification.
- Scheduling: class‑certification discovery due by August 7, 2023; broader merits discovery extends later.
- Magistrate judge found significant overlap between class‑certification and merits discovery here, concluded defendant has control/possession (or access) to many requested records, and ordered production of several categories while denying others as either unduly merits‑focused or confidential.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance/proportionality of staffing, assessment, occupancy, budget and policy data to class certification | These documents are relevant to commonality, typicality, and predominance because they show a uniform methodology of understaffing and corporate budgeting that applies class‑wide | Requests are merits‑driven, will not produce common answers under Dukes, and are burdensome/granular (some require expert analysis) | Granted production of Requests 3, 12, 13, 17, 26, 27, 28 and Interrogatory 4 as relevant/proportional; denied Request 18 (granular employee time/HR data) as merits‑focused and confidential |
| Control/possession under Rule 34 of documents held by facility owners but accessible to manager | Chancellor routinely exercises operational control and thus has possession or ability to obtain the documents (and produced exemplars) | Chancellor says it lacks legal ownership/control of many records; some are proprietary to non‑party owners | Court applied "control" precedent (actual possession or legal right to obtain) and found defendant had sufficient control/possession to compel production |
| Distinction between class‑certification discovery and merits discovery (Dukes overlap) | Some overlap is inevitable; discovery of staffing and corporate policies is appropriate to prepare a class‑certification motion and to show common methodology | Plaintiffs seek to "reverse‑engineer" merits proof and require expert proof of understaffing; class certification requires common answers, not merits fishing | Court recognized inevitable overlap per Dukes and allowed class‑relevant discovery here while limiting particularly granular or confidential merits discovery |
| Award of fees/sanctions under Rule 37 for needing motion to compel | Plaintiffs sought fees because motion was needed | Defendant defended as substantially justified in withholding/limiting production and showed good‑faith negotiations | No sanctions or fee award; court found defendant had substantial justification and parties were negotiating in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class commonality requires common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (rigorous predominance inquiry and overlap of merits and certification)
- Gray v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc., [citation="444 F. App'x 698"] (4th Cir. 2011) (predominance is more demanding and examines whether common questions predominate)
- Cook v. Howard, [citation="484 F. App'x 802"] (4th Cir. 2012) (relevancy is the foundation for discovery requests)
- Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Prod., Inc., 269 F.R.D. 609 (S.D.W. Va. 2010) (focus on who exercised supervision/control over documents for Rule 34)
- Hatfill v. New York Times Co., 242 F.R.D. 353 (E.D. Va. 2006) ("control" includes actual possession or legal right to obtain documents)
- Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497 (D. Md. 2010) (proportionality and limits on discovery scope)