United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, LaFayette Division
OPINION AND ORDER
P. RODOVICH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel [DE 40]
filed by the plaintiff, Joyce Ann VanHoosier, on April 12,
2019. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
plaintiff, Joyce Ann VanHoosier, initiated this matter on
October 26, 2017. VanHoosier brought this action against the
defendant, Franciscan Alliance, Inc., under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq., as amended, Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of
1991, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 2601, et. seq., as amended.
represents that in April of 2018 she propounded
interrogatories and requests for production of documents on
Franciscan. Franciscan did not answer all of the
interrogatories and failed to produce all the documents that
VanHoosier had requested. Franciscan agreed to supplement its
discovery responses, and since the beginning of 2019, with
majority of its supplementation occurring between March 29,
2019 and April 3, 2019, Franciscan produced thousands of
documents. However, Franciscan has refused to produce certain
documents and information.
has filed the instant motion requesting that the court compel
Franciscan to produce the income records of Ivy Antonian,
contact information for witnesses, and personnel files.
Franciscan filed a response in opposition on April 15, 2019,
and VanHoosier filed a reply on April 17, 2019. VanHoosier
did not file a Local Rule 37-1 certification along with her
party filing any discovery motion must file a separate
certification that the party has conferred in good faith or
attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort
to resolve the matter raised in the motion without court
action.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a). The certification must
include the date, time, and place of any conference or
attempted conference and the names of any participating
parties. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a)(1) and (2). The court may
deny any motion that failed to include the required
certification. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(b).
VanHoosier did not final the required certification, the
court will address the underlying issues because denying
VanHoosier's motion pursuant to Local Rule 37-1 will
simply delay the resolution of this dispute. See Felling
v. Knight, 2001 WL 1782361, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21,
2001) (“[T]he briefs leave little doubt that the
parties will not reach mutual agreement on the issues raised.
Therefore, the court will address the underlying issues
rather than deny the motion solely on the basis of a
procedural shortcoming. To hold otherwise would do little
other than delay resolution of these issues . . .”).
Courts have broad discretion in determining whether the
moving party has satisfied the meet-and-confer component of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37-1.
Sowell v. Dominguez, 2011 WL 4496505, at *3 (N.D.
Ind. 2011); see Lucas v. GC Servs. L.P., 226 F.R.D.
328, 335 (N.D. Ind. 2004) (finding the plaintiffs' lack
of compliance not fatal when the motion reflected an effort
to confer with the defendants).
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.
Borom v. Town of Merrillville, 2009 WL 1617085, at
*1 (N.D. Ind. June 8, 2009) (citing 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, at
*1 (S.D. Ind. July 30, 2001) (“For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action.”); Shapo v.
Engle, 2001 WL 629303, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2001)
(“Discovery is a search for the truth.”).
may seek an order to compel discovery when an opposing party
fails to respond to discovery requests or has provided
evasive or incomplete responses. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(2)-(3). The burden “rests upon the
objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is
improper.” Gregg v. Local 305 Ibew, 2009 WL
1325103, at *8 (N.D. Ind. May 13, 2009) (citing Kodish v.
Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447,
449-50 (N.D. Ill. 2006)); McGrath v. Everest Nat. Ins.
Co., 2009 WL 1325405, at *3 (N.D. Ind. May 13, 2009)
(internal citations omitted); Carlson Restaurants
Worldwide, Inc. v. Hammond Prof'l Cleaning Servs.,
2009 WL 692224, at *5 (N.D. Ind. March 12, 2009) (internal
citations omitted). The objecting party must show with
specificity that the request is improper. Cunningham v.
SmithklineBeecham, 255 F.R.D. 474, 478 (N.D. Ind. 2009)
(citing Grahamv.Casey=sGen. Stores, 206 F.R.D. 253,
254 (S.D. Ind. 2002)). That burden cannot be met by “a
reflexive invocation of the same baseless, often abused
litany that the requested discovery is vague, ambiguous,
overly broad, unduly burdensome or that it is neither
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.” Cunningham, 255
F.R.D. at 478 (citing Burkybile v. Mitsubishi Motors
Corp., 2006 WL 2325506, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2006))
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Rather, the
court, under its broad discretion, considers “the
totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of material
sought against the burden of providing it, and taking into
account society's interest in furthering the
truth-seeking function in the particular case before the
court.” Berning v. UAW Local 2209, 242 F.R.D.
510, 512 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (examining Patterson v. Avery
Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002))
(internal quotations and citations omitted); see Hunt v.
DaVita, Inc., 680 F.3d 775, 780 (7th Cir. 2012)
(explaining that the district court has broad discretion in
has requested that the court compel Franciscan to produce the
(a) Income records for Ivy Antonian for the latter half of
2018 and for the beginning of 2019;
(b) The addresses and telephone numbers of Franciscan
employees identified as possible witnesses and in ...