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.

Crumpley v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 28, 2017

JACOB CRUMPLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          GERALD L. RUSHFELT U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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.

         I. Interrogatories

         A. Interrogatory No. 6

         Plaintiff 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 filed;
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 resolved; and
vii) How the lawsuit, litigation or complaint was resolved.

(ECF 74-2 at 4-5.)

         AWG's Response:

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 $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.