United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
KATHLEEN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is a Motion to Compel [doc. 54] filed by plaintiff
Joni Fontenot (“Fontenot”) which is opposed by
defendant Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana
(“Safety Council”)[doc. 68]. For the following
reasons, Fontenot's Motion to Compel is
GRANTED in part and DENIED
filed a Complaint against her former employer Safety Council
alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”),
29 U.S.C. § 206(d) and retaliation for complaining about
the discrimination. Doc. 1.
7, 2017 Fontenot filed the motion before the court seeking to
compel answers to interrogatories and requests for production
of documents. We will address each of these discovery
requests in turn.
Law and Analysis
court begins its analysis with the principle that the
discovery rules are accorded a broad and liberal treatment to
affect their purpose of adequately informing litigants in
civil trials. Hebert v. Lando, 441 U.S.
153, 177 (1979). Nevertheless, discovery does have
boundaries, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507
(1947); and it is well established that the scope of
discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Burns v Thiokol Chemical Corp., 483 F.2d 300, 304-05
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of
discovery. It states, in part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). With these precepts in mind we now
turn to the specific discovery requests.
No. 2: Please describe every document you believe
relates to the facts alleged in this matter.
Council objects to this interrogatory as overbroad as it has
no date or content parameters and is not proportional to the
needs of the case. Subject to the objection, it refers
Fontenot to all documents produced in response to the
Requests for Production.
agree that this interrogatory is overbroad in that it has no
time or scope limitation and will deny plaintiff's motion
to compel an answer to this Interrogatory No. 2.
for Production No. 7: Other than bank statements and
accompanying checks, if any, produce all documents respecting
Iberia Bank since January 1, 2010.
Council objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and
irrelevant. Fontenot, in her reply memorandum, argues that
this request seeks information relative to her retaliation
allegations. She asserts that after she became concerned
about her salary, she began hearing complaints about banking
issues. She contends ...