Harrison v. Whole Foods Market

Background

The parties presented several discovery disputes in ECF No. 67. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties obtain information and documents from one another. The order addressed interrogatories, a privilege log, and subpoenas.

Interrogatories 2 and 8

Interrogatory 2 asked Harrison to identify all witnesses with knowledge of facts supporting her allegations that she was discriminated against based on race on December 24, 2019, at the Franklin Store. Interrogatory 8 asked her to identify witnesses with knowledge of facts supporting her allegation that Whole Foods’ actions were intentional, willful, malicious, or reckless.

Harrison identified two people in response to both interrogatories. Whole Foods argued that she had to provide complete and accurate answers, while Harrison argued that a final, exhaustive trial-witness list was premature. The court explained that Whole Foods was seeking identification of witnesses with knowledge supporting the complaint, not a trial witness list. The court found that information relevant and discoverable, granted Whole Foods’ motion, and ordered Harrison to provide complete answers to Interrogatories 2 and 8 within 30 days.

Interrogatory 10

Interrogatory 10 asked Harrison to provide facts, witnesses, and documents supporting each denial of specified requests for admission. It also asked her to describe the reasonable inquiry she made before denying the requests and, if she lacked information, the efforts she made to obtain it.

The court found that Harrison had partially answered Interrogatory 10 concerning her denials of Requests for Admission 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10, but that her answers were incomplete. The court said that generic references to photographs, a victim-impact statement, medical records, or injury records did not identify particular documents. It also found that “and others with knowledge” did not sufficiently identify witnesses. For those requests for admission, the court found that Harrison had not sufficiently answered parts (a), (b), and (c), and had not answered parts (d) and (e).

The court agreed that Harrison had waived privacy protection for documents directly relevant to her claimed damages, while noting that Harrison had to state what damages she was claiming. The court also stated that her interrogatory responses had to be truthful and should not contradict one another about whether medical records existed. The court granted Whole Foods’ motion to compel and ordered Harrison to provide a complete response to Interrogatory 10 within 30 days.

Privilege Log and Withheld Documents

Harrison’s response to Request for Production 1 showed that she was withholding documents based on privilege. Whole Foods argued that Harrison could not claim attorney-client privilege because she was representing herself. Harrison said she was claiming work-product protection instead.

The court explained that the work-product doctrine can protect materials prepared by investigators or other agents for an attorney, but that Harrison had no attorney involved. Because she did not establish that she or anyone else prepared the logged documents as an attorney’s agents, the court found that she had not established work-product protection. The court overruled her privilege claim and ordered her to produce the withheld documents within 30 days.

Subpoenas and Disposition

Whole Foods said it was unclear whether Harrison had served third-party subpoenas. The court saw no need to take action on that issue.

The order therefore granted Whole Foods’ motions to compel complete responses to Interrogatories 2, 8, and 10, overruled Harrison’s claim of work-product protection, ordered production of the withheld documents, and took no action concerning the subpoena issue.