Handloser v. HCL America, Inc.

Background

HCL America, Inc. and HCL Technologies, Ltd. asked the court for additional discovery and other relief concerning the damages claims of plaintiffs Gregory Handloser and Cerafin Castillo. The plaintiffs opposed the request as too broad and unwarranted. The underlying claims were for alleged race- and citizenship-based disparate treatment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and race- and national-origin-based disparate treatment and disparate impact under federal employment-discrimination law. Both plaintiffs sought monetary relief, including non-economic damages.

Castillo’s discovery

Castillo claimed $400,000 in compensatory non-economic damages based on anxiety, emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, and stress to his marital relationship. HCL sought mental-health and medical records from 2013 through the present, further deposition testimony about psychiatric treatment, and an independent mental examination under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court required Castillo to produce records concerning the types of symptoms or conditions he claimed were caused by HCL’s conduct. The permitted period began two years before Castillo first applied to HCL and continued through the present. The court concluded that the records were relevant to whether HCL’s conduct caused the claimed injuries and to the nature and severity of those injuries.

The court also required Castillo to participate in a further deposition limited to questions about psychiatric treatment that he had previously refused to answer, along with reasonable follow-up questions. The deposition could not exceed one hour.

The court denied HCL’s request for an independent mental examination. Although it found that Castillo’s mental condition was in controversy because he claimed anxiety severe enough to require psychiatric treatment, it found that HCL had not shown good cause. The court also described the request as untimely because HCL did not seek the examination until after fact discovery had closed.

Handloser’s discovery

Handloser claimed $3 million in compensatory non-economic damages based on humiliation, harm to his professional reputation, and stress to familial relationships. He said he was claiming only ordinary, or “garden variety,” emotional distress and no ongoing emotional distress. HCL sought his performance reviews from Infosys for 2010 through 2012 and asked him to formally confirm that he was claiming only that type of emotional distress.

The court found the Infosys performance reviews relevant because they might help explain why Handloser was fired from that company and could support HCL’s defense concerning his future employability. However, Handloser did not have to produce the reviews himself if HCL had already obtained them from Infosys by subpoena.

The court did not require Handloser to provide the requested formal confirmation. Instead, because his answer to HCL’s damages interrogatory was ambiguous, the court required him to identify what portion of the $3 million in non-economic damages he attributed to emotional distress and what portion he attributed to other sources. He also had to clarify whether his emotional distress was ongoing or, if it had ended, the date it ceased.

Disposition

The court required the plaintiffs to provide the additional discovery described in the order. Castillo’s further deposition had to occur by July 30, 2021, unless the parties agreed otherwise. Handloser’s performance reviews, if still required, and his amended interrogatory response were due by July 21, 2021. The court denied the request for Castillo’s independent medical examination and did not require Handloser to provide HCL’s requested formal confirmation.