Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Crumpley v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.
United States District Court, D. Kansas
April 28, 2017
JACOB CRUMPLEY, Plaintiff,
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. RUSHFELT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed this action for alleged disability discrimination and
retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq.
(“ADA”). He alleges that Defendant Associated
Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (“AWG”) and Defendant
Clarence M. Kelley & Associates, Inc. were both his
employers, and that both unlawfully discriminated and
retaliated against him. The matter before the Court is
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF 74). The
motion is directed only against Defendant AWG. Plaintiff
thereby seeks an order to compel responses from AWG to
Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 11 and production of documents to
Request Nos. 31 and 32. As detailed below, the Court grants
in part and denies in part the motion.
Interrogatory No. 6
requests the following information:
6. Has Defendant been a party to any lawsuits, investigations
or been involved in any litigation or complaints filed with
any governmental agencies within the last five (5) years
where there were allegations of discrimination based upon
disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodations,
retaliation for exercising a protected right or claims of
discrimination, or alleged violations of the [Family Medical
Leave Act] based upon any state or federal discrimination
law? If so, please:
a. State the following for each lawsuit or litigation:
i) The federal or state court or agency in which it was
ii) The style and case number;
iii) The city, county, and state where each lawsuit or
complaint was filed;
iv) The date on which it was filed;
vi) [sic] Whether each lawsuit, litigation or complaint is
currently pending, is scheduled for trial or has been
vii) How the lawsuit, litigation or complaint was resolved.
(ECF 74-2 at 4-5.)
Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
it is overly broad and unduly burdensome as it is not
reasonably limited as to geographic scope or to individuals
similarly situated to Plaintiff. In addition it seeks
information regarding the allegations of FMLA violations
which is information outside the scope of the allegations in
the current lawsuit. Consequently, the Interrogatory is not
proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
information entirely irrelevant to Plaintiff's claims and
the allegations contained in Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint. Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory to
Buy This Entire Record For