Ashmore v. CGI Inc

Background

The order addressed two sets of discovery disputes: Ashmore’s motion to compel discovery from defendants and defendants’ motion to compel discovery from Ashmore. The court stated that discovery had closed in the case, that trial was scheduled for the following spring, and that it had previously reopened discovery for limited purposes. It declined to hold another discovery conference and reviewed the requests based on their materiality and proportionality to the case.

Ashmore’s Motion to Compel

The court denied Request Nos. 1–9. It found that these requests exceeded the limited discovery allowed when discovery was reopened, were not proportional, and would impose an undue burden. The court also stated that discovery concerning the 49/51 theory was ancillary to the main claims and would not be ordered at that stage.

For Request Nos. 10–13, the court stated that defendants would produce Director-level employee compensation information for employees in Ms. Carragher’s sector from 2009 through 2018, as defendants had represented. Subject to that production, the requests were otherwise denied because the information did not concern relevant comparators. Request No. 14 was denied.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel

For Request Nos. 1–3, the court reiterated that Ashmore was to produce documents concerning his efforts to find subsequent employment because they were relevant to mitigation of damages—the reduction of claimed losses through later employment or similar efforts. The court noted Ashmore’s representations that he had produced more than 300 pages, had produced 13 additional pages in October, and had agreed to provide any additional documents. The court stated that he appeared to have complied unless defendants could identify specific documents being withheld.

Request Nos. 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 11 were denied. For Request No. 8, the court directed Ashmore to produce his law school transcript as of January 2020 because his damages expert had made projections based on his grade-point average. For Request Nos. 9, 10, and 14, the court directed Ashmore, to the extent he had not already done so, to provide complete and unredacted portions of his federal tax returns for 2014 through 2018 concerning his income, along with documents concerning his wages or income for 2019, such as wage statements or other income forms. All other requests were denied.

Deadlines and Further Filing

The court ordered that production generally be completed by January 6, 2020. Documents concerning Ashmore’s 2019 wages and income were due by February 14, 2020, unless good cause justified further delay. The parties were also directed to file on the docket letters related to defendants’ motion to compel, with necessary redactions under the protective order. The court stated that it would then decide whether the information should remain redacted.

Disposition

This was a discovery order rather than a decision on the underlying claims. The court denied the specified discovery requests, directed the limited productions described above, set production deadlines, and required the parties to file redacted letters. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge James L. Cott.