King v. Chipotle Services, LLC, No. 3:2017cv00804 - Document 41 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 29 MOTION to Compel; denying Plaintiff's 36 MOTION to File a Late Response; directing Defendant to provide supplemental responses to discovery requests as more fully set forth herein within seven days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 7/27/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (jsa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
King v. Chipotle Services, LLC Doc. 41 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION KAITLYN KIN G, Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o .: 3 :17-cv-0 0 8 0 4 CH IPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, D e fe n d an t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION an d ORD ER This action involves the alleged wrongful term ination of Plaintiff by her em ployer, Chipotle Services, LLC (“Chipotle”). On J uly 26, 20 17, the parties appeared, by counsel, on Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel answers to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, (ECF No. 29), and Plaintiff’s m otion to file a late response to Defendant’s m otion to com pel, (ECF No. 36). Having considered the argum ents, and as set forth below, the court GRAN TS, in part, and D EN IES, in part, Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel and D EN IES Plaintiff’s m otion to file a late response. Defendant is ORD ERED to provide the following supplem ental responses to discovery requests within s e ve n d ays of the date of this Order. Mo tio n to Co m p e l Plaintiff com plains that Defendant provided inadequate responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10 , 13, 14, 17, and 18. The interrogatories in dispute can be divided into three categories: (1) an interrogatory about individuals that participated in providing inform ation to answer the interrogatories; (2) interrogatories seeking 1 Dockets.Justia.com inform ation surrounding Plaintiff’s work perform ance at Chipotle and her term ination; and (3) interrogatories seeking inform ation about other em ployee term inations. With respect to the first category, which includes Interrogatory No. 1, the court grants the m otion to com pel. Defendant has provided som e inform ation regarding the identity of individuals who participated in responding to the discovery, but shall provide Plaintiff with a supplem ental response explaining which particular interrogatories were answered by which particular individual. Defendant shall also supply the nam e of an individual in the com pliance departm ent who can act as a representative of Chipotle in this case. Supplem ental answers to the next category of requests, which include Interrogatory Nos. 8, 9, 10 , 13, and 14, are com pelled, in part. Defendant indicates that m any of the events that form the basis of Plaintiff’s interrogatories sim ply were not docum ented at the tim e they occurred. In the absence of docum entation, Defendant has been forced to rely upon the m em ories of its em ployees, som e of whom no longer work for the company and som e of whom deny having a clear m em ory of the events. Defendant concedes that Plaintiff is entitled to the inform ation, but states that no additional inform ation is available at this tim e. Obviously, Defendant cannot produce inform ation that is not in its possession. On the other hand, Defendant has the obligation to m ake a reasonable investigation in order to fully answer the discovery requests. Therefore, Defendant is ORD ERED to conduct an additional investigation for inform ation responsive to the interrogatories in this category and to provide supplem ental answers setting forth any new inform ation it obtains regarding Plaintiff’s job perform ance and the circum stances surrounding her discharge in October 20 15. 2 In regard to the last category of interrogatories, which includes Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18, Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel is D EN IED . Plaintiff requests inform ation regarding other Chipotle em ployees who were term inated due to m edical conditions. Defendant explains that it knows of no em ployee whose em ploym ent was term inated for m edical reasons. That answer is satisfactory. Plaintiff also seeks inform ation regarding other lawsuits brought against Chipotle alleging wrongful term ination. Defendant has supplied inform ation for suits arising in the State of West Virginia, but Plaintiff is not satisfied with Chipotle’s geographical lim itation. Generally, in cases of wrongful discharge, the scope of discovery regarding other sim ilar term inations is lim ited to the personnel and em ploying units that m ade the decision to term inate the plaintiff. See, e.g., Rodger v. Elec. Data Sy s., Corp., 155 F.R.D. 537, 542 (E.D.N.C. 1994) (holding that claim s of wrongful term ination brought by em ployees of other business units were not relevant because the em ployees were not sim ilarly situated); Marens v. Carrabba's Italian Grill, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 35, 39 (D. Md. 20 0 0 ) (holding that proposed discovery regarding involuntary term inations of em ploym ent in two states and the District of Colum bia, without lim itation, was overly broad, and m odifying the request to seek inform ation relating to the term ination of em ployees within the last 5 years who were supervised by the sam e supervisors that participated in the im proper conduct alleged by the plaintiff). Such a lim itation is appropriate for the needs of this litigation; especially, when taking into account the proportionality requirem ent of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Plaintiff has not established any connection between term ination decisions m ade in West Virginia and those m ade by Chipotle in other states or regions. Consequently, requiring Chipotle to collect and review inform ation regarding wrongful discharge lawsuits filed in other states across the 3 country, without an established connection, would constitute a burden disproportionate to the anticipated benefits of the discovery. Mo tio n to File Late Re s p o n s e Plaintiff asks the court to grant her leave to file a late response to Defendant’s Motion to Com pel; however, an Order granting the m otion to com pel was already entered, and the undersigned sees no good reason to set the Order aside. Therefore, the Motion to file a late response, (ECF No. 36), is D EN IED . Although the Motion is denied, the court m akes a sua sponte am endm ent to its previous Order granting Defendant’s m otion to com pel. The Order, (ECF No. 34), is am ended to state that Plaintiff shall not be required to produce her incom e tax returns to Defendant if there are other less intrusive financial docum ents that can supply sufficient inform ation relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of lost wages. “Although the Fourth Circuit has not developed a clear rule as to the discoverability of tax returns, in general, disclosure of tax returns is disfavored.” Ying-Jun Chen v. Md. Dept. of Health and Hum an Servs., No. ELH-15-1796, 20 17 WL 1533988, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 27, 20 17) (citing Susko v. City of W eirton, No. 5:0 9-cv-1, 20 10 WL 3584425, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 10 , 20 10 ); Eastern Auto Distribs., Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of Am ., Inc., 96 F.R.D. 147, 148-49 (E.D. Va. 1982)). In this Circuit, courts generally apply a two-prong test to determ ine if incom e tax returns should be produced in discovery. Id. (citing Hastings v. OneW est Bank, FSB, No. GLR-10 -3375, 20 13 WL 150 20 0 8, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 11, 20 13)). “Under this test, tax returns are discoverable if (1) they are relevant to a m atter in dispute; and (2) they are needed, because the inform ation is not available from other sources. … The party seeking disclosure carries the burden to show that the tax returns are relevant, and the resisting party carries the burden to identify an alternate source of 4 the inform ation.” Id. (internal citation om itted). Here, Plaintiff’s tax returns are clearly relevant to her claim for lost wages. However, Plaintiff has supplied inform ation relevant to her financial loss, and Defendant has inform ation already in its possession docum enting Plaintiff’s wages in 20 14 and 20 15. Plaintiff represents to the court that she has not worked since her term ination from Chipotle in October 20 15. Accordingly, it appears that Defendant has sufficient inform ation to evaluate Plaintiff’s lost wages claim without requiring the production of her incom e tax returns. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record. EN TERED : J uly 27, 20 17 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
