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.

Hall v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 18, 2018

PAMELA HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

          KENNETH G. GALE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Now before the Court is Plaintiff Pamela Hall's “Motion for an Order as to Defendant's Claims of ‘Privilege.'” (Doc. 92.) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as more fully set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges she was subject to employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Family Medical and Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff contends she was forced to terminate her employment, while Defendants Life Care Centers of America (“Defendant LCCA” or “LCCA”) and Michelle Yosick (“Defendant Yosick” or “Yosick”) contend Plaintiff did so voluntarily.

         The present motion concerns Plaintiff's First Document Requests, which it served on July 20, 2017. (Doc. 92, at 2.) Responses were served by Defendant LCCA on September 5, 2017, but no documents were produced. (Doc. 92-2.) In response to 15 of the requests, Defendant indicated that “privileged” documents would not be produced. No privilege log was provided, however. Certain documents were served on September 21, 2017, but no privilege log was included. Thereafter, Plaintiff's counsel requested a telephone conference with the Court on, which occurred on September 29, 2017. (Doc. 47, text entry; 9/29/17 text entry.) During the conference, Plaintiff raised the issue of Defendants' raising the privilege objections without providing a privilege log. (See Doc. 92-3.)

         According to Plaintiff,

Five months later (on February 2, 2018 - the same day Defendants' response [Doc.63] to Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement [Doc. 58] was due, and one month before the discovery deadline), Defendants served supplemental responses to several of Plaintiff's First Document Requests. (See Exhibit D). Specifically, as to seven of the previous responses served . . ., Defendants supplemented them but - as to each of them - it was still indicated that ‘privileged' documents would not be produced. The remaining eight responses, which previously had raised privilege, were not supplemented and the objections were not withdrawn. No Privilege Log was produced in connection with Defendants' supplemental responses served on February 2, 2018, even though Plaintiff's Motion for Enforcement again raised this as an issue and asked that the Court determine the privilege objections had been waived. (Doc. 58).

(Doc. 92, at 2.)

         Defendants ultimately served a privilege log on February 24, 2018, a week before the discovery deadline. (Doc. 92, at 2; Doc. 92-5.) The log lists ten items, but, according to Plaintiff,

fails to differentiate between who authored, received, or were carbon copied on the documents, fails to identify what type of documents or how many pages they are, there are no titles of the ‘Author'(s) listed and many of the people listed are unknown, there are multiple dates listed, and the ‘Description'(s) of the documents are too vague for Plaintiff or the Court to assess whether the documents are appropriately being withheld as privileged.

(Doc. 92, at 2-3.) Plaintiff's counsel emailed defense counsel about the alleged deficiencies of the privilege log on March 13, 2018, and April 4, 2018. (Doc. 92-1.) Defendant did, however, serve a supplemental privilege log on April 4, 2018, after this motion was filed. (Doc. 92-6.) Plaintiff contends the supplemental log is also deficient. (Doc. 92, at 3.) The present motion was filed two days later.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Legal Standards.

         Defendant points out that Plaintiff's motion was filed beyond the time allowed for discovery motions enumerated by D. Kan. ...


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.