Wager v. G4S Secure Integration, LLC

Background

The parties filed competing discovery motions in Ashly Wager’s action against G4S Secure Integration, LLC. The disputes concerned Wager’s claims involving commissions and other claims referenced in the parties’ submissions, including gender discrimination and retaliation. G4S sought Wager’s income tax returns and employment-related records. Wager sought documents concerning her commissions and projects, human-resources and accounting records, a forensic copy of “Ron’s iPhone,” an updated privilege log, and rulings concerning subpoenas to nonparties.

G4S’s Motion

G4S sought Wager’s income tax returns and documents concerning her efforts to obtain employment. The court found G4S’s motion procedurally deficient because it lacked a notice of motion, required supporting materials, and the required certification that the parties had tried in good faith to resolve the dispute without court action. The court nevertheless addressed the motion’s merits.

The court denied the request for Wager’s income tax returns. G4S had given inconsistent descriptions of the years requested, and its stated reason for seeking the returns was to calculate lost-wage damages. Wager represented that she sought commissions owed by G4S for work completed there and did not seek lost wages or other damages tied to her current or former compensation. The court found no basis to compel the tax returns for the purpose G4S identified.

The court granted the request concerning Document Request No. 9. It found information about Wager’s efforts to obtain employment relevant to mitigation of damages and credibility, overruled Wager’s objection that the request was outside the proper scope of discovery, and ordered Wager to respond.

Wager’s Motion

The court granted in part Wager’s motion to compel. It found the requested “Project Financials” relevant and overruled G4S’s relevance objection. The court also found that G4S waived its right to seek a protective order for the requested confidential or proprietary information because it did not timely move for one or seek an extension. G4S was ordered to respond to Wager’s April 24, 2020 Document Request No. 2.

The court also ordered G4S to respond to Wager’s June 6, 2019 Document Request Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, and 16, and April 24, 2020 Document Request Nos. 3 and 8. These requests concerned commission calculations and records, project assignments, the compensation of certain team members, records relied on by human resources in preparing a commission statement, commission payments, and project financial information. The court treated April 24, 2020 Document Request No. 5 as duplicative of Request No. 3.

The court ordered G4S to produce the forensic copy of “Ron’s iPhone” made on or about December 30, 2019. It rejected G4S’s unsupported assertion that the device’s data was primarily private and sensitive, and found that G4S had waived its right to seek a protective order concerning the phone by failing to make a timely motion or seek an extension. The court did not decide a separate claim for spoliation sanctions or a violation of another judge’s order because Wager had not properly moved for that relief.

The court found Wager’s request for an updated and complete privilege log moot. Based on its rulings concerning the project financials, commissions, human-resources documents, and phone, the court found that G4S had waived its right to seek a protective order and to withhold those documents based on privilege.

Nonparty Subpoenas

The court overruled G4S’s objections to Wager’s subpoenas directed to Dr. Sara E. Boyd, Stephen Tukavkin, and Access Control Technologies. G4S had asserted relevance objections but had not claimed a privilege or personal right in the subpoenaed materials, so it lacked standing to object on those grounds.

The court found Wager had standing to challenge G4S’s subpoenas to Convirgent Technologies, Access Control Technologies, Redhawk Fire & Security, and Champion Logistics because she asserted privacy interests in her personal and financial information. The court denied Wager’s request to quash categories a), e), and f), concerning applications, records about unemployment or other benefits, and employment contracts or similar agreements. The court found those categories relevant and rejected Wager’s argument that her prior production barred G4S from seeking potentially duplicative information from nonparties.

The court sustained Wager’s objection to category c), which sought W-2, W-4, and 1099 forms, because G4S did not show how those tax documents were relevant or establish a compelling need for them. The court also sustained Wager’s objections to categories b), d), g), h), k), l), and m), involving earnings, reasons for leaving employment, performance evaluations, reprimands, work restrictions, and transfers. G4S had not shown a compelling need for the broad and sensitive information it sought. The court did not quash categories i) and j) because Wager had not objected to them. Wager’s request concerning Securitas Security Services USA was moot after G4S abandoned its request to serve that subpoena.

Fees and Disposition

The court declined to consider Wager’s request for attorney’s fees and costs because she did not support that request in her opening motion and raised the argument improperly for the first time in reply. The court also did not consider a new spoliation argument presented in reply.

The conclusion states that G4S’s motion was denied in part and granted in part, with Wager ordered to respond to Document Request No. 9 by December 11, 2020. Wager’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, with G4S ordered to provide the specified documents and forensic phone copy by December 11, 2020, while being permitted to serve only categories a), e), f), i), and j) of its subpoenas to Convirgent Technologies, Access Control Technologies, Redhawk Fire & Security, and Champion Logistics. Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox did not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to either motion’s disposition.