LOHR v. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. et al
Filing
69
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES IS GRANTED AND DENIED. THE CROSS MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (1); ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 10/14/11. 10/14/11 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KRISTA V. LOHR
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.,
et al.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-5857
MEMORANDUM
Bartle, J.
October 14, 2011
Plaintiff Krista V. Lohr ("Lohr") brings this action
for sexual harassment and retaliation under the Massachusetts
Anti-Discrimination Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B et seq.
She was formerly employed as a paralegal at the defendant law
firm of Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.
We previously granted the
motion of defendants to dismiss all of Lohr's claims with the
exception of those for retaliation in violation of the AntiDiscrimination Statute.
Before the court are the motion of Lohr
to compel discovery responses and the cross motion of defendants
for a protective order.
Lohr seeks discovery regarding the alleged unethical
conduct of an associate at the firm, Angela Troccoli.
To make
out a prima facie case for retaliation, a plaintiff must plead
that:
(1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) she suffered an
adverse employment decision; and (3) a causal connection exists.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, ยง 4(4A); Abramian v. President &
Fellows of Harvard Coll., 731 N.E.2d 1075, 1087-88 (2000).
Reporting or protesting a co-worker's alleged unethical
conduct is not protected activity under the retaliation provision
of the Anti-Discrimination Statute.
Fantini v. Salem State
Coll., 557 F.3d 22, 33 (1st Cir. 2009).
are not to the contrary.
The cases cited by Lohr
Accordingly, the information Lohr seeks
regarding Troccoli's work performance and her alleged unethical
conduct is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant and admissible evidence.1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Plaintiff also seeks "[a]ll documents reflecting the
case names of all pre-litigation and cases in litigation handled
by the Kimmel & Silverman Massachusetts office between January 1,
2007 and the day the office closed."
Defendants object on the
grounds of attorney-client privilege.
The identity of a client is not protected under the
attorney-client privilege.
See, e.g., United States v. Strahl,
590 F.2d 10, 11 (1st Cir. 1978).
Therefore, plaintiff is
entitled to a list of cases handled by the law firm to rebut the
defendants' assertion that she was terminated due to a downturn
in business.
To the extent that Lohr seeks other documents or
information regarding these cases, her motion to compel is denied
on the basis of attorney-client privilege and relevancy.
Lohr also seeks:
(1) her personnel file; (2) all
records and other information related to her termination; (3)
1. This order in no way limits the ability of plaintiff to seek
information regarding the alleged sexual relationship between
Troccoli and Craig Kimmel, Esquire to support her retaliation
claim.
-2-
records of any complaints she made to management regarding her
job or work environment; and (4) information regarding the firm's
insurance coverage.
She correctly asserts that this information
is relevant to her claim of retaliation.
However, defendants
report that this information has now been produced to the extent
that it exists.
The motion to compel is moot as to this
information.
Accordingly, the motion of plaintiff to compel is
granted in part and denied in part.
The cross motion of
defendants for a protective order is granted except to the extent
that plaintiff seeks a list of cases handled by the Massachusetts
Kimmel & Silverman office from the date of her hiring until the
closing of the office.
-3-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
