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.

Julie A. Schubart v. Horizon Wind Energy

December 11, 2012

JULIE A. SCHUBART, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HORIZON WIND ENERGY, LLC, N/K/A EDP RENEWABLES NORTH AMERICA, LLC, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Byron G. Cudmore, U.S. Magistrate Judge:

E-FILED

Tuesday, 11 December, 2012 03:43:56 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Horizon Wind Energy, LLC n/k/a EDP Renewables North America, LLC's (EDP) Second Motion to Compel Regarding Confidential Documents (d/e 16) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Julie Schubart alleges that EDP discriminated against her and retaliated against her because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Complaint (d/e 1). EDP now moves to compel more complete discovery responses from Schubart. This Court allowed EDP's First Motion to Compel (d/e 10), without objection. Text Order entered October 1, 2012. Schubart provided responses to EDP's interrogatories and requests to produce on October 3, 2012. Schubart provided supplemental responses and supplemental Rule 26 disclosures on October 29, 2012. Motion, at 2; Response to Defendant's Second Motion to Compel Regarding Confidential Documents (d/e 17) (Response), at 2. EDP asks the Court to compel more complete responses to Interrogatories 2, 4-5, 7-8, and Document Production Requests No. 9-10, 13, 15, 20-25, and 27-28.*fn1 The Court addresses the disputed discovery requests as grouped by EDP, as follows: Interrogatory No. 2

Interrogatory No. 2 asks for a calculation of Schubart's damages, the dates of those losses, and the basis for the calculations. Motion, Exhibit 1, Schubart's Answers to Interrogatories, at 3. Schubart's initial response was inadequate, but she subsequently provided a calculation of damages in her supplemental rule 26 disclosure. Response, Exhibit A, Plaintiff's Supplemental Disclosure Made Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), at 4-5. This part of the request has been satisfied.

In addition, Schubart enrolled in classes at Roosevelt University and Parkland College since leaving EDP's employ. Based on this, EDP asks for Schubart's records at those institutions, as well as her undergraduate program. Schubart responds that she supplied her receipts from her attendance at those institutions and copies of receipts for incidental expenses incurred for books. Response, at 4. Schubart's supplemental response of the receipts is sufficient. The receipts contain the relevant information sought by the interrogatory with respect to subsequent educational expenses after termination. Information regarding her education before she worked for EDP is not responsive to the interrogatory. The request to compel such information is denied.

The motion to compel additional responses to Interrogatory 2 is therefore denied.

Interrogatories Nos. 4-5, and Document Requests Nos. 9-10, 13, and 27

These discovery requests seek the identification of efforts to mitigate damages, including subsequent employment, other income, full names and addresses of each employer, business or entity from whom or which Schubart sought employment after her departure from EDP, the dates of applications for employment, nature of work sought, names of supervisors, and identification of all documents related to that income. Schubart responds that she has provided this information. Schubart is directed to review the requests and provide any additional responsive information that she possesses, or documents in her possession, that she had not already provided. If she has no additional information or documents, she should say so in her response.

Schubart produced a spreadsheet that contained some of the responsive information and some redactions. Schubart states that privileged information was redacted. Schubart is directed to provide either an unredacted copy of the spreadsheet or a privilege log. The privilege log must meet the requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)(A). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A).

Interrogatory No.7

EDP seeks an order compelling Schubart to identify the dates that Schubart claims to have been unable to work, the reason, and the treating physicians in those periods of incapacitation. Schubart is directed to provide this information. This information may be subject to a protective order. The parties have been unable to agree on a ...


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.