McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:17-cv-05058
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In McKey v. U.S. Bank, Judge Schultz granted in part and denied in part a discovery motion and denied sanctions as moot.
Julie McKey and U.S. Bank National Association; the order also concerns personnel records of employees who reported directly to Yvonne Meshikomer and specified depositions.
What happened
In McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association, Julie McKey alleged that U.S. Bank fired her because of her age or her report of discrimination. She sought personnel records for employees who reported to the supervisor involved in her termination and wanted to continue certain depositions.
The court ordered U.S. Bank to produce, within 30 days, records from January 1, 2015, onward concerning discipline, termination, performance conduct, or performance evaluations for employees who reported directly to that supervisor. Personal information could be redacted. The court also allowed McKey to reopen two depositions on specified topics, under the parties’ agreement.
Judge Schultz granted in part and denied in part McKey’s motion to compel. He denied her request for sanctions as moot, and the permitted depositions had to occur within 15 days of the order’s entry.
The detailed version
- McKey v. U.S. Bank National Association · No. 0:17-cv-05058
- Nancy Brasel
- July 9, 2018
Background
Julie McKey sued U.S. Bank National Association alleging age-based employment discrimination. She had worked for U.S. Bank for 41 years, was placed on a 60-day performance improvement plan in May 2016, reported to human-resources personnel that she believed she was experiencing age discrimination, and was terminated in October 2016. McKey alleged that her termination was based on her age or her report to human resources. U.S. Bank maintained that it terminated her for performance-related reasons.
McKey moved to compel production of personnel records for employees who reported directly to Yvonne Meshikomer from January 1, 2013, to the present. She later narrowed the request to records concerning discipline, termination, performance conduct, or performance evaluations, covering January 1, 2015, to the present. The narrowed request involved 19 employees. McKey also initially sought sanctions and permission to continue certain depositions, but the parties resolved those issues before the hearing, and McKey withdrew those requests.
Discovery analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court concluded that McKey’s narrowed request was relevant because comparator evidence—information about similarly situated employees who may have been treated differently—could support her discrimination claim. The court also found the request proportionate because U.S. Bank had sole possession of the records and had not shown that producing them would impose an undue burden compared with their potential value.
The court limited the production to the narrowed categories and time period. It also noted that an existing protective order would help protect the privacy interests of nonparty employees. The court concluded that McKey was entitled to the narrowed set of documents.
Order
The court ordered U.S. Bank to produce, within 30 days after entry of the order, all documents concerning the discipline, termination, performance conduct, or performance evaluation of employees who reported directly to Yvonne Meshikomer from January 1, 2015, to the present. Personal information, including medical information and Social Security numbers, could be redacted.
The court also permitted McKey to reopen the deposition of Keith Frohlicher regarding Exhibit 68 and the deposition of U.S. Bank’s corporate representative under Rule 30(b)(6) regarding McKey’s qualifications compared with the qualifications for the Image Processor 2 and Image Processor 3 positions. Those depositions had to occur no later than 15 days after entry of the order.
Judge David T. Schultz ordered that McKey’s motion to compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court also ordered that McKey’s request for sanctions was DENIED as moot.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.