Villarroel v. Staples, Inc.

Background

Pamela Villarroel asserts state-law claims for harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful constructive discharge arising from her employment at Staples. She alleges that ongoing harassment and discrimination, together with retaliation for complaints to her employer, forced her to quit on December 5, 2021. She seeks compensatory damages, including lost wages.

Staples served requests for production of documents, a form of discovery requiring a party to provide relevant, nonprivileged documents, concerning Villarroel’s travel, passport, and phone records. The parties asked the court to resolve their dispute over Requests for Production Nos. 16, 17, and 39. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

Requests for Production Nos. 16 and 17

RFP No. 16 sought documents relating to Villarroel’s travel to or from Bolivia between November 1, 2021, and February 28, 2022. RFP No. 17 sought a copy of her passport showing travel from the United States to another country during that period.

Staples argued that the records could show whether Villarroel resigned because her work schedule interfered with international travel rather than because of intolerable working conditions. Staples also argued that the records could show whether Villarroel failed to reduce her damages by traveling instead of seeking or accepting employment after her resignation. Villarroel argued that her travel occurred months after her resignation and denied receiving a monetary inheritance. She did not argue that producing the requested discovery would be unduly burdensome and did not address Staples’ mitigation-of-damages argument.

The court concluded that evidence about whether Villarroel resigned to travel could be relevant to her constructive-discharge claim and to the reasons for her resignation. The court also concluded that evidence about whether she traveled instead of seeking or accepting work could be relevant to her compensatory-damages claim.

The court found RFP No. 16 unnecessarily broad because it requested “any and all” documents that related to the travel. Instead, the court ordered Villarroel to produce documents sufficient to show the dates and locations of her travel to or from Bolivia during the specified period, with the identity of the traveler. The court stated that the two screenshots she had already produced were insufficient. For RFP No. 17, the court ordered her to produce a responsive passport copy because the existing travel records were incomplete or unclear and she suggested she might not possess credit-card statements or other travel records.

Request for Production No. 39

RFP No. 39 sought Villarroel’s cellular phone bills or invoices from January 1, 2021, through the present, including available details about incoming and outgoing calls and texts involving Staples employees. The request allowed redaction of unrelated phone numbers and communications.

Staples argued that Villarroel had selectively produced communications with Staples’ human-resources personnel while withholding other communications, including communications from Staples personnel. Staples also asserted that Villarroel had deliberately deleted some relevant text messages after her resignation while anticipating litigation. Villarroel said she had produced communications and argued that she had a constitutional privacy interest in her phone records. She also argued that the request was overbroad and that Staples should seek communications from its own employees instead.

The court noted concerns that Villarroel might have selectively produced records favorable to her claims. However, it concluded that Staples had not explained why it needed the full scope of documents requested in RFP No. 39. The court also noted that Staples had not addressed Villarroel’s privacy and overbreadth objections or explained why the discovery was justified despite those concerns. The court therefore did not require Villarroel to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 39.

Disposition

The court ordered Villarroel to produce the documents responsive to RFP Nos. 16 and 17 as limited by the order, by October 4, 2024. The court did not require production of documents responsive to RFP No. 39.