The opinion of the court was delivered by: P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, Magistrate Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order
On April 21, 2004, this court ordered Plaintiff to submit a memorandum
describing what discovery is needed from Defendant and why. This case is
in the twilight of discovery. It is now time for the sun to set.
Plaintiff seeks to review the content of what he calls the Lean
Enterprise 9001-2000 Audits. Plaintiff argues he needs to review these
materials because they may "unmask discriminatory practices where
differing rates and work instructions do not match." Defendant argues
that the audits do not address pay rates. Additionally, and more
importantly, Defendant argues the audits contain confidential trade
secret business information regarding Defendant's manufacturing process.
This argument alone justifies denying Plaintiff's request as Plaintiff
has provided no real basis for the necessity of the audits. As such, this
court, as it has done on at least one previous occasion, denies
Plaintiff's request for the Lean Enterprise 9001-2000 Audits.
While Plaintiff acknowledges the receipt of certain documents and
charts which contain financial information regarding certain of Defendant's employee's
incomes, Plaintiff nevertheless still seeks labor grade at
hire/transfer/promotion and duration at labor grade date for employees of
Division 38, Departments 9305, 9313 and 9316 for the time period
encompassing Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. Defendant asserts
Plaintiff has been provided with the data regarding labor grade and
duration at labor grade on two separate occasions, most recently on March
25, 2004. Therefore, based on Defendant's representation that Plaintiff
has all the requested information, this court denies Plaintiffs request.
Plaintiff acknowledges receiving job application materials for the
employees specifically requested. However, Plaintiff argues the
disclosures are void of any documented attempts by Defendant to verify
the educational background or work history of each applicant.
Additionally, Plaintiff claims that no notes, photocopies of diplomas or
course work are contained in Defendant's disclosures. Defendant argues it
produced applications for all positions, including those for which
Plaintiff applied. Additionally, Plaintiff copied information provided by
applicants who applied for positions Plaintiff sought. These copies,
Defendant asserts, included notes (if any) of the interviewers which were
made on the applications. Defendant states these are the only notes that
are retained by Defendant. Therefore, based on the representations made
by Defendant, Plaintiff's request is denied.
Plaintiff wants access to particular portions of Defendant's Job
Manuals and Operators Instructions given to employees for Defendant's
machining and dies case/assembly production functions only. Defendant
argues that its need to maintain its proprietary and confidential information far exceeds any minimal curiosity Plaintiff has in obtaining
access to such information. Additionally, Defendant argues Plaintiff has
never issued any Rule 33 or Rule 34 request seeking such information.
That point is decisive. Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to seek this
information prior to what is now the end of fact discovery. Therefore,
Plaintiff's request for the information is denied.
Plaintiff seeks disclosure for a missing attachment indicated on the
face of Plaintiff's May 31, 1997 application for a Machine Operator
position. Defendant asserts that the attachment was previously provided.
The Defendant will provide the attachment within 7 days of the date of
Plaintiff seeks "any policies or procedures or manuals which implement
the intent of Defendant's Preside Candler's letter to employees of March
1, 2000 and/or which supplement, amend or supplant Defendant's
predecessor corporation, Barber Colman's Standards of Conduct, . . ."
Plaintiff seeks this information because "Plaintiff cannot inquire of
Defendant's managerial employees as to their implementation of
Defendant's policies without a working knowledge of what those polices
are or were during periods of Plaintiff's employment by Defendant."
Defendant asserts that it has previously provided Plaintiff with its
employment policies and Plaintiff has never raised any issue regarding
its production of employment-related policies. Based on ...