Facts
- An employee sued her employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging interference with protected leave and retaliation.
- During discovery, the employee served interrogatories and document requests seeking information about other employees’ FMLA leave requests and any complaints, charges, or lawsuits alleging FMLA violations.
- One interrogatory sought identification and detailed information about all employees who requested FMLA leave over a lengthy period; the employer objected that compliance would require reviewing thousands of personnel files over roughly ten years.
- The employer objected to multiple requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
- The dispute came before the court on the employee’s motion to compel discovery responses.
Issues
- Whether broad “pattern-and-practice” discovery concerning other employees’ FMLA leave and complaints is relevant and within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).
- Whether the employer met its burden to justify nonproduction based on irrelevance or undue burden.
- Whether the court may sustain objections to requests that are unduly burdensome on their face, even without a detailed evidentiary showing of burden.
- Whether personnel files of individuals involved in the termination decision are discoverable.
Decision
- The motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part.
- The court held that discovery about other FMLA complaints, charges, and lawsuits was relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
- The court found certain requests facially overbroad and unduly burdensome because of their sweeping scope (including a long time frame and a large universe of personnel files) and sustained objections to those portions.
- The court required the employer to provide narrower, targeted responses and to produce relevant materials, including personnel files of individuals alleged to have participated directly or indirectly in the termination decision.
Legal Principles
- When requested discovery appears relevant under Rule 26(b)(1), the resisting party bears the burden to show lack of relevance or that the request is so marginally relevant that the burden outweighs the ordinary presumption favoring broad discovery.
- A court may deny or limit discovery that is unduly burdensome on its face, even if the resisting party offers only generalized burden assertions.
- In employment cases, information about an employer’s treatment of other employees and prior complaints or litigation may be discoverable as evidence bearing on motive, intent, or a pattern of unlawful conduct.
- Personnel files of decision-makers (or those involved in the challenged employment action) are generally relevant and discoverable, subject to appropriate tailoring and protections.
Conclusion
The court permitted targeted discovery into other FMLA complaints and decision-maker personnel files, but refused to compel compliance with sweeping, long-range requests that would require a massive, undifferentiated review of employee personnel records.