## Facts

- African-American and Latino production (non-clerical, non-administrative) employees at a Chicago manufacturing plant sued their employer under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment involving racially derogatory comments by management, discriminatory treatment in placement, assignments, promotions, and discipline, and retaliation for complaints.
- Plaintiffs served discovery requests seeking (1) race and national-origin discrimination complaints, charges, and grievances at the same plant by similarly situated workers, and (2) personnel and disciplinary files for non-clerical/non-administrative employees for a limited period (approximately 1998–2002).
- The employer objected that the requests were overbroad and unduly burdensome and characterized them as seeking information about all allegedly discriminatory actions.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).

## Issues

1. Whether, in an employment discrimination and retaliation case, discovery may include other employees’ discrimination complaints and non-party personnel/disciplinary files from the same facility when limited to the types of discrimination alleged.
2. Whether the requests should be denied or narrowed under Rule 26(b) because they are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or because burden outweighs likely benefit.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to compel in substantial part.
- The court ordered production of race and national-origin discrimination complaints, charges, and grievances involving non-clerical/non-administrative employees at the Chicago plant for the defined period.
- The court ordered production of personnel and disciplinary files for the identified workforce group for the defined period.
- The court rejected the employer’s overbreadth and burden objections given the subject-matter, location, and time limits placed on the requests.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 26(b), parties may obtain nonprivileged discovery relevant to any party’s claim or defense.
- Rule 26(b) permits limiting discovery only when it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from a less burdensome source, or when burden or expense outweighs likely benefit.
- In discrimination cases, other employees’ discrimination complaints can be relevant to intent, pattern evidence, and pretext, particularly when the discovery is tied to the same facility and practices at issue.
- Requests for non-party personnel and disciplinary files may be permitted when narrowly limited to the claims, the relevant time period, and the relevant employee group, with confidentiality concerns addressed through protective measures.

## Conclusion

The court compelled production because plaintiffs’ discovery targeted a defined plant, employee category, time period, and alleged discrimination types, making the requested complaints and personnel/disciplinary records relevant and proportional under Rule 26(b), including as potential evidence of pretext and workplace conditions.


Davis v. Precoat Metals, No. 01 C 3512, 2002 WL 1759828 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2002)