Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Isom v. Midwest Division-Oprmc, LLC

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 17, 2014

SHEILA ISOM, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDWEST DIVISION — OPRMC, LLC, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

K. GARY SEBELIUS, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Midwest Division - OPRMC, LLC's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 22). Defendant seeks to compel a full and complete damages computation from Plaintiff Sheila Isom in her initial disclosures pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Based upon the following, the Court hereby denies Defendant's motion.

I. Relevant Background

Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer alleging sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, and wrongful termination. On March 3, 2014, the Court entered an order directing the parties to exchange their Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures and provide a copy of their disclosures to the Court by April 30, 2014. On May 2, 2014, Plaintiff served her initial disclosures on Defendant and provided a copy to the Court. Plaintiff's initial disclosures included the following with regard to damages:

C. Rule 26(a)(1)(C) - Computation of Damages:
a. Plaintiff's damages consist of actual damages, penalties, attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff is in the process of consulting with prospective expert witnesses to calculate her damages, all of which will be produced upon its completion and as required thereafter according to the Court's scheduling orders and Rule 26, FRCP.
i. Past Lost Wages
ii. Past Lost Benefit
iii. Future Lost Wages
iv. Future Lost Benefits
v. Mental Anguish
vi. Attorney fees and costs.

On May 16, 2014, the parties began discussions about the sufficiency of Plaintiff's damages disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Defendants argued that Plaintiff's initial disclosures failed to include a computation of each category of damages and the documents upon which each computation is based. On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to Defendant's counsel outlining how she calculated a settlement offer she previously made based on Plaintiff's lost income.[1] She also stated that she was in the process of obtaining an opinion from an economist to provide a precise calculation of lost wages. On June 2, 2014, Defendant filed the present motion to compel prior to receiving any further damages information from Plaintiff. Defendant's motion claims that Plaintiff's initial disclosures are insufficient and that she should be ordered to supplement her initial disclosures "to provide a computation of all categories of damages claimed and make available for inspection and copying the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered."[2] Defendant further requests an award of costs under Rule 37(a)(4) for bringing this motion.

Subsequent to the filing of the present motion, Plaintiff provided Defendant her IRS Form W-2s since 2010 and several paycheck stubs from Plaintiff's employment with Defendant and her subsequent employer. On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff served her expert disclosure, which set forth the expert's calculations for past and future lost wages and benefits. On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff served "Plaintiff's First Amended Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures" on Defendant, a copy of which was attached to an email directed to Defendant's counsel and carbon copied to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. As further ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.