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.

Tom Shay v. Lifting Gear Hire

December 21, 2012

TOM SHAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LIFTING GEAR HIRE, CORP., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Tom Shay brings this action against his former employer, Defendant Lifting Gear Hire, Corp. ("Lifting Gear"), alleging Lifting Gear discriminated against him on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and retaliated against him for his complaints about age discrimination. Lifting Gear now brings a motion to compel, arguing that Shay has failed to respond to discovery requests concerning his employment since his termination from Lifting Gear. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to compel.

I. BACKGROUND

Tom Shay worked as a Regional Sales Manager for Lifting Gear from April 2005 until December 2010. In his complaint, Shay alleges that Lifting Gear passed him over for a promotion in favor of a younger, less-qualified worker; and that, after he complained about the promotion decision as discriminatory, the company fired him.

Shay currently operates his own business, Hoisting-Rigging Equipment Rentals, Inc. ("HRERI").

On June 15, 2012, Lifting Gear served Shay with interrogatories and document requests, some of which sought information concerning Shay's employment since his December 8, 2010 termination. Shay has, in large part, refused to respond to those requests, asserting that they are "unduly burdensome," "irrelevant," "an invasion of privacy," etc. The three requests at issue, Shay's initial responses / objections, and Shay's subsequent responses (as expressed in a meet & confer letter) are condensed below:

Interrogatory No. 8

Identify every employer by whom Plaintiff has been employed (other than Defendant) from December 9, 2010 to the present..

Plaintiff's Initial Response: Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory No. 8 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and as violating the collateral source rule. Subject to and without waiving said objection, Plaintiff's corporation, Hoisting-Rigging Equipment Rentals, Inc.

Plaintiff's Supplemental Response from 9/26/12 Letter: Plaintiff maintains that his answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is complete. Nonetheless, Plaintiff further states that he has owned Hoisting-Rigging Equipment Rentals, Inc. since approximately August of 2011 and has not received any income from this position.

Document Request No. 20

For the period from December 8, 2008 through the present, all documents relating to Plaintiff's efforts to obtain employment, including but not limited to employment applications or inquiries Plaintiff has made (including any logs, diaries or any other records of such inquiries kept by Plaintiff or on behalf of Plaintiff) and documents submitted to or received from third parties.

Plaintiff's Initial Response: Plaintiff objects to Request No. 20 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and an invasion of privacy. Subject to and without waiving said objection, Plaintiff states he provided IDES his resume to keep on file for any job opportunities through their employment services.

Plaintiff's Supplemental Response from 9/26/12 Letter: Plaintiff maintains his answer and objections and further clarifies that all documents have ...


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.