The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to respond to interrogatories 1-5 and requests for production1 and 6-9. (Doc. 31). Also before the Court is defendant's memorandum in opposition. (Doc. 32).
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
FedR.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added).
Defendant was granted summary judgment with respect to Count 1, which alleged breach of an employment contract. At this juncture, only Count 2 remains, which alleges the plaintiff was discharged in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Therefore, discovery is limited to that which is relevant to Count 2.
Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 6
Plaintiff asked for "each and every reason" defendant discharged plaintiff. Defendant cited "unsatisfactory work performance/ in ability to meet expectations and perform at the level required of a Senior Lab Analyst." Defendant referenced documents produced in response to Request for Production. Request for Production No. 6 seeks corresponding documentation. Defendant listed a range of documents by Bates Number, and also generally referred to documents produced in response to interrogatories and other requests for production.
Defendant's descriptive response to Interrogatory No. 1 and reference in the response to Request for Production No. 6 to a specific range of documents by Bates Number are appropriate, but its vague reference to other discovery responses and documents only creates confusion. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to compel is granted, in that defendant shall serve a revised answer to Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 6, clarifying the supporting documentation that is responsive to both discovery requests.
Interrogatory No. 2 is aimed at discerning the identity and contact information for "each person who participated in the decision to discharge plaintiff from her employment and each person who supplied information which was used by the persons who participated in making said decision." Defendant revealed the identities of four people. Plaintiff objects that defendant has not identified documents referenced in its answer with sufficient clarity.
The interrogatory does not demand the identification of documentation, and defendant did not reference any in its response. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied with respect to Interrogatory No. 2.
Interrogatory No. 3 seeks, in pertinent part, plaintiff's "all salary changes and reasons therefore." Defendant responded by providing a documented payroll history, referenced by Bates Number, which was an option permitted by the terms of the interrogatory. Defendant indicates that some of the job descriptions could not be located. Plaintiff asserts that defendant has not given any salary or salary change information.
On its face, defendant's response appears adequate, but without reviewing the documents at issue, and without a more detailed objection from plaintiff, the Court cannot perform the requisite review and analysis. Therefore, plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to ...