Brinkman v. Summit Fire Protection Co.

Background

This magistrate judge’s order addressed seven discovery-related motions in Kimberly Brinkman’s employment-discrimination case against Sprinkler Fitters Local #417, Summit Fire Protection Co., and Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. The opinion states that Local #417 had previously been dismissed. Brinkman was represented by counsel, as were Summit and Gilbert.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. The court emphasized that discovery must be limited when its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit. The order resolved the motions as follows.

Summit’s and Gilbert’s motions to compel

The court granted Summit’s and Gilbert’s motions in part concerning Brinkman’s initial disclosures. Brinkman had not provided the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), despite repeated reminders. The court ordered her to provide them within seven days of the order, if she had not already done so, and imposed a $1,000 sanction payable by Brinkman to Summit within 30 days. Gilbert did not seek attorney fees and costs on this issue.

The court granted Summit’s and Gilbert’s motions in part concerning medical records. Brinkman had claimed emotional-distress damages and had identified a clinical psychologist as a potential expert. The court ordered her, by March 1, 2022, to execute and produce authorizations for medical providers for records from January 1, 2008, through the present concerning diagnoses or treatment for mental, emotional, or psychological issues and their manifestations. The responsive records were to be designated confidential under the existing protective order, with access limited as specified by the court. The motions were otherwise denied on the medical-record requests; the court did not authorize discovery into Brinkman’s entire medical history.

The court denied Summit’s and Gilbert’s requests for attorney fees and costs allegedly incurred because Brinkman was not adequately prepared for a settlement conference. The court concluded that the cited discovery-sanctions rule and precedent did not authorize the requested relief for alleged settlement-conference misconduct.

As to Summit’s remaining discovery requests, the court denied Summit’s motion in part as moot because Brinkman had supplemented and certified several responses. Those requests concerned social media, factual information, mitigation, income, and related materials. The court granted Summit’s motion in part concerning Request for Production No. 53, requiring production of any missing 2020 W-2 forms and other unproduced documents concerning employment and sources of income sought or obtained from March 28, 2016, through the present, including Schedule C forms to the extent applicable. The motion was otherwise denied as to that request.

Summit and Gilbert also sought dismissal as a discovery sanction. The court denied that request. It found that the discovery problems did not rise to the level of willful, bad-faith, or egregious misconduct warranting dismissal with prejudice, while warning that continuing failures could lead to appropriate sanctions.

Brinkman’s two earlier motions to compel

Brinkman filed separate motions to compel against Summit and Gilbert, but described them as placeholders and did not identify the specific discovery disputes, requested relief, or deficiencies required by the local rules. She later sought to withdraw the motions. The court denied her request to withdraw them and denied the motions without prejudice.

Because the motions were denied and had required Summit, Gilbert, and the court to expend resources, the court ordered Brinkman to pay Summit’s and Gilbert’s reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in responding to those motions. Counsel for Summit and Gilbert were ordered to file affidavits by March 1, 2022, and Brinkman could respond by March 15, 2022.

Summit’s motion for a protective order

The court granted Summit’s motion for a protective order in part and denied it in part. The motion concerned Brinkman’s proposed deposition of Summit under Rule 30(b)(6), which listed 50 topics. The court narrowed the topics, limited the scope generally to projects within Local 417’s jurisdiction or projects on which Local 417 members worked, and limited the period generally to January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016. The court struck Condition 10 of the deposition notice and prohibited the remaining topics listed in the order.

If Brinkman wished to proceed, the deposition could occur no sooner than 35 days and within 60 days of the order, would be limited to one day and seven hours, and would require a revised notice served at least 30 days before the deposition. Each party was ordered to bear its own fees and costs for this motion.

Brinkman’s subpoena motion against William McManus

The court granted Brinkman’s motion to compel testimony and documents from nonparty William McManus in part and denied it in part. McManus had been personally served with a subpoena, failed to appear, and did not respond to the motion. The court ordered him to appear for a videoconference deposition within 45 days and required Brinkman to serve an amended subpoena consistent with the order.

The court limited the subpoena. McManus was required to provide documents and communications concerning Brinkman and materials concerning Summit’s staffing of the U.S. Bank Stadium project, including sprinkler-fitter applications, referrals, hiring, discipline, layoffs, and terminations connected with that project. The request for materials concerning any Local 417 member or staff was stricken, and the motion was otherwise denied.

Brinkman’s later motion to compel against Summit and Gilbert

The court granted Brinkman’s later motion to compel against Summit and Gilbert in part and denied it in part. It declined to require a new electronic-discovery search because Brinkman had ample opportunity to address electronic stored information during the discovery period but waited until near its end. The court also denied her request to extend the fact-discovery deadline to subpoena Pipe Trade Services Minnesota because she had not shown the diligence and good cause required to modify the scheduling order.

The court limited comparator discovery and related complaints to the claims at issue—sex discrimination and retaliation—and generally limited the geographic scope to Minnesota. It rejected Brinkman’s request for broad discovery into all forms of discrimination and differential treatment based on the employers’ reliance on the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense. The court explained that this defense did not make all complaints relevant or eliminate the proportionality limits of Rule 26.

For Summit, the court partly granted discovery requests concerning comparator information, personnel files, complaints, grievances, and related data. The general period for much of that discovery was January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017. Summit was ordered to provide specified information about sprinkler fitters, including dates of hire, gender, job status, employment length, separation reasons, hours, compensation, and certain project information. Summit was also ordered to produce or supplement specified information concerning sex discrimination and retaliation, subject to the limits stated in the order. The court denied requests for broader electronic searches and denied or limited requests for certain personnel files and other materials.

For Gilbert, the court partly granted discovery requests concerning project information, sprinkler-fitter employment data, comparator personnel files, social-media information, complaints, and grievances. The court limited many requests to January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017, and declined to require race or ethnicity information where it found that information irrelevant to the claims. Gilbert was ordered to produce responsive social-media information and to supplement certain answers, including information about complaints known to specified levels of management. Other requests were denied, denied as moot, or denied because Gilbert represented that it had no additional responsive material.

The court ordered that responsive personnel files be treated as confidential under the existing protective order. It also stated that parties generally would bear their own fees and costs on this later motion to compel, except that fees and costs associated with Brinkman’s earlier placeholder motions would be addressed through the ordered affidavits.

Final dispositions

The order formally states that Summit’s motion to compel and Gilbert’s motion to compel were each granted in part and denied in part. Brinkman’s two earlier motions to compel were each denied without prejudice. Summit’s protective-order motion was granted in part and denied in part. Brinkman’s motion concerning McManus was granted in part and denied in part. Brinkman’s later motion to compel against Summit and Gilbert was granted in part and denied in part. The order also directed supplementation within 30 days unless another deadline was specified and stated that a second amended pretrial scheduling order would issue.