United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
KENNETH G. GALE, Magistrate Judge.
The above-captioned matter is a workplace discrimination case filed by Plaintiff alleging that she was treated unfavorably because of her race and gender. She also alleges that her employment was terminated after she complained about the alleged discrimination. ( See Doc. 1.)
Before the Court is the Motion to Compel (Doc. 13) filed by Plaintiff, requesting supplemental responses to certain of Plaintiff's discovery requests as well as additional information required pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) initial disclosures. Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiff's motion and the time to do so has expired. D.Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1). Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED as uncontested pursuant to D.Kan. Rule 7.4. Even so, the Court will briefly address the substance of the requests at issue.
A. Standards for Discovery.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) states that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Courts of this District have long held that "[d]iscovery relevance is minimal relevance, ' which means it is possible and reasonably calculated that the request will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Teichgraeber v. Memorial Union Corp. of Emporia State University, 932 F.Supp. 1263, 1265 (D. Kan. 1996) (internal citation omitted). "Relevance is broadly construed at the discovery stage of the litigation and a request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action." Smith v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 137 F.R.D. 25, 27 (D.Kan.1991).
Discovery requests must be relevant on their face. Williams v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 192 F.R.D. 698, 705 (D. Kan. 2000). Once this low burden of relevance is established, the legal burden regarding the defense of a motion to compel resides with the party opposing the discovery request. See Swackhammer v. Sprint Corp. PCS, 225 F.R.D. 658, 661, 662, 666 (D. Kan. 2004) (stating that the party resisting a discovery request based on overbreadth, vagueness, ambiguity, or undue burden/expense objections bears the burden to support the objections).
Although the scope of discovery is broad, it is not unlimited. If the proponent has failed to specify how the information is relevant, the Court will not require the respondent to produce the evidence. Gheesling v. Chater, 162 F.R.D. 649 (D.Kan.1995).
Even so, courts look "with disfavor on conclusory or boilerplate objections that discovery requests are irrelevant, immaterial, unduly burdensome, or overly broad." Id., 650. "Unless a request is overly broad, irrelevant, or unduly burdensome on its face, the party asserting the objection has the duty to support its objections." Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hosp. Authority, 221 F.R.D. 661, n. 36 (D.Kan.2004) (citing Hammond v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 216 F.R.D. 666, 670 (D.Kan. 2003)); Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682, 685 (D. Kan. 1991) (stating that a party resisting a discovery request based on relevancy grounds bears the burden of explaining how "each discovery request is irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence, or burdensome"). Thus, "the objecting party must specifically show in its response to the motion to compel, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded by the federal discovery rules, how each request for production or interrogatory is objectionable." Sonnino, 221 F.R.D. at 670-71 (internal citation omitted).
B. Discovery at Issue.
Within this framework, Defendants are ordered to provide the following information:
1. The last known addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals identified in Defendants' Rule 26(a) initial disclosures. (Doc. 13-1.)
2. The identity of Defendants' employees who complained about discrimination or harassment from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013. (Interrogatory No. 7, Doc. 13-2, at 3.) Defendants' response to this Interrogatory consists of unsupported boilerplate objections which the Court would have been inclined to overrule even had Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motion. Gheesling, 162 F.R.D. at 650.
3. The requested information regarding employees hired, terminated, and/or who worked within the areas of responsibility for Selena Smith and/or Tramaine Smith from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013. (Interrogatories Nos. 8-11, Doc. 13-2, at 3-5.) Defendants' response to these Interrogatories consist of unsupported boilerplate objections which the Court would have been inclined to overrule even had Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motion. Gheesling, 162 F.R.D. at 650.
4. The requested information regarding charges or lawsuits filed against Defendants alleging race and/or gender discrimination from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013. (Interrogatories Nos. 12-13, Doc. 13-2, at 5.) Defendants stated they would "identify all charges of discrimination... which name Selena Smith and/or Tramaine Smith." ( Id. ) While these responses limited the substance of the interrogatories, Defendants did not, however, object to the underlying discovery requests. As such, any ...