United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
DAVID A. SCOTT, JR., Plaintiff,
LEAR CORPORATION, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the court on the Motion for Subpoenas [DE
98] filed by the plaintiff, David A. Scott, Jr., on January
30, 2017. Based on the foregoing, the motion is
December 16, 2016, the plaintiff, David A. Scott, Jr., filed
the Motion to Proceed with Jury Trial [DE 89]. Scott
requested a jury trial in his Complaint [DE 1], therefore,
the court denied the motion as moot. Also, in the motion
Scott requested the court to order Lear to produce phone
records for numbers (219) 852-0014, (219) 853-8145, and (877)
829-7328. The court ordered Scott to show cause as to why the
phone records were relevant.
January 24, 2017, Scott filed Response to United States
Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich January 11, 2016 Order
for Plaintiff to Show Cause as to Why the Phone Records are
Relevant [DE 96]. Scott also filed a Motion for Subpoenas [DE
98] on January 30, 2017. Scott indicated that the phone
records will show that he called Lear consistently, Lear only
called three or four times between August 30, 2012 to
December 31, 2012, Lear did not call him between January 1,
2013 to April 23, 2013, and Lear provided fraudulent phone
documents for (877) 829- 7328. Scott contends that the phone
records indicate that during his leave of absence and after
his termination Lear's “bad acts” never
filed a Brief in Opposition to the Relief Request in
Plaintiff's January 13 and 24, 2017 Responses [DE 97].
Lear indicated that it has produced records or invoices for
the telephone numbers (877) 829-7328, (219) 852-0014, and
(219) 853-8145. Lear produced the records for number (219)
852-0014 from the time period August 2012 to May 2013 as
requested by Scott. Lear redacted information related to
calls made by non-Human Resources professionals and the
amounts paid to the telephone company. Lear indicated that
the records for numbers (219) 852-0014 and (219) 853-8145
only include incoming calls. However, it provided Scott the
phone company's information to subpoena outgoing calls.
Lear does not have records for (219) 853-8145, rather it
receives an invoice. Calls from (219) 853-8145 appear under
an Employee ID number. Lear produced calls appearing under
Employee ID 145, 138, 141 for all the Human Resources
professionals that Scott interacted with.
Motion for Subpoenas included a request for the phone records
that Lear has indicated it produced to Scott. Also, it
included requests to subpoena phone records associated with
Scott and his witnesses, video surveillance, and Lear's
transcript of proceedings for workers compensation. Discovery
in this matter ended on December 30, 2016.
may “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any
party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition and location of any books, documents, or other
tangible things.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1). For discovery purposes, relevancy is construed
broadly to encompass “any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on,
any issue that is or may be in the case.” Chavez v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D. 615, 619 (S.D. Ind.
2002) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,
437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 2389, 57 L.Ed.2d 253
(1978)). Even when information is not directly related to the
claims or defenses identified in the pleadings, the
information still may be relevant to the broader subject
matter at hand and meet the rule's good cause standard.
Sanyo Laser Prods., Inc. v. Arista Records, Inc.,
214 F.R.D. 496, 502 (S.D. Ind. 2003); see Adams v.
Target, 2001 WL 987853, *1 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (“For
good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter
relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action.”); see also Shapo v. Engle, 2001 WL
629303, *2 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2001).
objected to Scott's request for telephone records before
or after the August 2012 to May 2013 time period or the
information Lear redacted because that information is not
relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of relevant
information. Lear contends that Scott's requests included
calls made during August 2012 through May 2013 time frame.
Also, Scott was on leave of absence from December 2011 to
August 28, 2012. Therefore, Lear indicated that the phone
records prior to August 2012 have no relevance to this
matter, as well as calls made to non-HR employees, the amount
Lear paid the telephone company each month., and calls made
after Scott was terminated on April 23, 2013.
court finds that Scott's request for subpoenas fails to
seek information that is relevant to the matter. Furthermore,
Scott's requests are unlikely to produce or lead to
discoverable information. Also, the issuance of Scott's
subpoena requests by court order is ...