## Facts

- A.W. (plaintiff) worked for I.B. Corporation (IBC) (defendant).
- A.W. sued IBC in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, alleging a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment by another IBC employee.
- During A.W.’s deposition, IBC asked questions that A.W. refused to answer, including:
  - whether he had ever been attracted to a male at work (question 4);
  - whether he had had multiple casual sexual partners and multiple homosexual partners (question 5);
  - whether he had ever “picked someone up or been picked up or performed any sexual act in the Western Prom Park” (question 6A);
  - whether he had ever engaged in any sexual activity on a pick-up basis (question 6B); and
  - whether he had had any sexual relationships with males at IBC (question 7).
- IBC filed a motion to compel A.W. to answer the disputed deposition questions.
- The reported decision at 224 F.R.D. 20 (D. Me. 2004) addresses that discovery dispute (not the ultimate merits of the harassment claim).

## Issues

1. In an employment hostile-work-environment case alleging sexual harassment, may the defendant compel the plaintiff to answer deposition questions concerning the plaintiff’s sexual orientation, sexual history, and alleged sexual conduct in specific locations or on a “pick-up” basis?
2. How should a federal court apply the discovery rules to requests that are claimed to be relevant to the claims or defenses, but that also risk undue embarrassment or harassment to the deponent?

## Decision

- The district court resolved IBC’s motion to compel answers to the specified deposition questions.
- The court treated the dispute as a limits-of-discovery question governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and evaluated whether the requested testimony was within the proper scope of discovery in light of the case’s claims and defenses.
- In addressing the motion, the court weighed asserted relevance against the personal and potentially humiliating nature of the inquiries and issued a discovery order identifying the permissible scope of questioning.

## Legal Principles

- Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may reach nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a party’s claims or defenses, but courts must limit discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, overly intrusive, or disproportionate to the needs of the case.
- Deposition questioning is subject to judicial control; when questions seek highly private sexual information, courts commonly require a concrete showing of case-related relevance rather than allowing generalized character or propensity inquiry.
- In sexual-harassment litigation, a party’s sexual history or orientation is not automatically discoverable simply because the dispute involves sexual conduct; courts assess whether the requested information is tied to material issues such as the alleged workplace conduct, causation, or damages.
- Courts may tailor discovery orders to reduce unnecessary embarrassment and to prevent the deposition process from being used as a tool for harassment.

## Conclusion

*A.W. v. I.B. Corp.* is a federal discovery decision arising from a sexual-harassment hostile-work-environment suit in which the employer sought to compel answers to deposition questions probing the plaintiff’s sexual orientation and sexual past; the court addressed the scope of permissible inquiry under the federal discovery rules and entered an order controlling which questions could properly be required in discovery given the balance between claimed relevance and the private nature of the information sought.


A.W. v. I.B. Corp., 224 F.R.D. 20 (2004)