Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill

Background

Famuyide alleges that Chipotle hired Lionell Bailey, a registered sex offender, and that Bailey sexually harassed and sexually assaulted her at the Chipotle restaurant where she worked. The opinion states that Bailey pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct in connection with his conduct toward Famuyide. The court addressed two discovery matters: Chipotle Services’ request for two additional hours of Famuyide’s deposition and Famuyide’s motion to compel Chipotle to provide additional discovery. Discovery is the pretrial exchange of information and documents relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses.

Request for Additional Deposition Time

Chipotle Services had already questioned Famuyide for seven hours, the usual one-day limit for a deposition. It argued that her pauses, delays, and allegedly nonresponsive answers prevented counsel from completing its examination. Famuyide argued that Chipotle Services used substantial time questioning her about the assault, her sexual orientation and history, college-related topics, and other matters instead of prioritizing subjects such as damages and alleged responsible parties.

After reviewing the deposition transcript and video, the court found that Famuyide’s pauses were not excessive or improper and that she was not evasive. The court also found that Chipotle Services did not raise concerns about her pacing or responsiveness until near the end of the deposition. The court held that Chipotle Services was responsible for how it conducted the deposition and that its strategic choices about which subjects to cover did not justify more time. The court denied Chipotle Services’ Motion for Leave to Extend Plaintiff’s Deposition.

Communications on Employees’ Personal Devices

Famuyide sought work-related communications from employees’ personal phones, including text messages and GroupMe chats. Chipotle argued that it did not possess or control those communications because the devices were personal and the company did not officially endorse GroupMe for work communications.

Under Rule 34, a party must produce relevant electronically stored information within its possession, custody, or control. The court held that control can include the practical ability to obtain information from another person, even without ownership or physical possession. It found that Chipotle’s policies and testimony showed that the company could request work-related communications from employees’ personal devices during harassment investigations, could discipline employees who refused to cooperate, and had required employees to provide personal phones for imaging in some cases.

The court therefore found that Chipotle had the practical ability to obtain the requested work-related communications. It ordered Chipotle to produce responsive information obtained from employees, including information from personal devices, concerning investigations involving Famuyide and complaints about Bailey. If Chipotle had not yet requested responsive information from current employees, it had to do so. If no responsive information existed, Chipotle had to say so in supplemental discovery responses. The court also required Chipotle to present a witness prepared to address specified topics, including whether and when it obtained and preserved communications from employees’ personal devices.

Responses to Document Requests

Famuyide argued that Chipotle’s responses did not clearly state whether documents were being withheld based on objections other than attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The court agreed that Rule 34 requires an objection to state whether responsive materials are being withheld because of that objection.

The court ordered Chipotle to serve supplemental responses to Request for Production Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 28, 32, 33, 34, and 36. The supplemental responses had to state whether documents were being withheld based on any objection, or state that no documents were being withheld because of objections, to the extent Chipotle had not already provided that information.

Prior Harassment, Assault, and EEOC-Related Discovery

Famuyide sought information about sexual assaults and harassment at Chipotle locations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission consent decrees, lawsuits and arbitrations involving sexual-assault liability, and incidents at the restaurant where she worked. The court found that this information could be relevant to Famuyide’s claims, including her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and claims involving negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and workplace safety.

The court found that Chipotle’s centralized system for receiving and investigating workplace complaints supported nationwide discovery about sexual assaults and related information. It ordered Chipotle to provide certain company-wide information from 2015 to the present, rather than the 2011-to-2021 period proposed by Famuyide. The order covered specified requests concerning EEOC findings and corrective actions related to sexual assault or harassment, sexual assaults recorded in Chipotle’s centralized system, and lawsuits or arbitrations accusing Chipotle of liability for sexual assault. The court did not require production of EEOC consent decrees relating only to workplace violence.

For the restaurant where Famuyide worked, the court ordered production for specified requests concerning sexual harassment, sexual assault, and violence from 2016 through 2021. It also ordered responses concerning complaints about managers during 2021. The order required Chipotle to clarify whether additional documents existed, were being produced, or were being withheld based on objections.

Criminal Background-Check Discovery

The court ordered Chipotle to produce background-check policies in effect when Bailey was hired and continuing through the present. It reasoned that Famuyide could use the policies to test Chipotle’s discovery response describing which restaurant employees were subject to background checks. The court stated that Minnesota law does not impose a general legal duty on employers to investigate a prospective employee’s criminal record, but it found background-check information potentially relevant in the circumstances alleged by Famuyide.

The court denied the motion to compel insofar as Famuyide sought, through Interrogatory No. 8, identification of every restaurant employee subject to a criminal background check, because that interrogatory asked for identification of managers rather than all employees.

The court limited Interrogatory No. 17 to restaurant employees and required Chipotle to search centralized systems, records, or databases for information about registered sex offenders hired from 2019 to the present and steps taken to inform or protect other employees. Chipotle did not have to search each of its more than 3,000 restaurants individually. If it had no additional centralized sources, it had to say so.

The court also ordered Chipotle to produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 24 concerning why certain people were no longer employed. The order covered managers, Apprentices, Kitchen Leaders, and Service Leaders who worked at the restaurant during 2021 and were no longer employed by Chipotle. If no further responsive documents were in Chipotle’s possession, custody, or control, Chipotle had to state that in a supplemental response.

Disposition

The court denied Chipotle Services, LLC’s Motion for Leave to Extend Plaintiff’s Deposition. It granted in part and denied in part Famuyide’s Motion to Compel Discovery. The defendants were ordered to provide the discovery required by the order by April 2, 2026, unless a timely objection was filed.