Haran v. Orange Business Services Inc.

Background

Patricia Haran sued Orange Business Services, Inc., alleging unlawful interference with and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) and discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law. Orange Business Services asserted counterclaims, including breach of contract.

Haran served interrogatories on July 8, 2022. Orange Business Services responded on February 9, 2023. After Haran sent a deficiency letter, Orange Business Services refused to provide the comparator evidence and damages calculation at issue. Haran then filed a discovery motion seeking three forms of relief: a 45-day extension of fact discovery and related deadlines, comparator evidence concerning Global Account Directors and Integration Services Specialists, and an itemized computation of damages for Orange Business Services’ counterclaims.

Legal standards

The court explained that courts have broad discretion over motions to compel discovery. Discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Information does not have to be admissible at trial to be discoverable. The court also noted that, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered, a party generally may serve no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts.

Comparator evidence

Haran worked as an Accounts Manager. She argued that the requested employees were relevant comparators because they shared a supervisor with her, sold the same products, or performed the same duties. Orange Business Services argued that the positions differed in job requirements, skills, experience, and performance expectations.

The court concluded that the requested evidence was discoverable because it could be relevant to Haran’s employment-discrimination claims and was not overly broad or burdensome. The court did not decide whether the positions were ultimately appropriate comparators for purposes of the claims; it stated that issue could be addressed at the summary-judgment stage.

Damages calculation

Orange Business Services objected to the damages request on the ground that Haran had exceeded the permitted number of interrogatories because Interrogatory 15 was improperly compounded. Haran disputed that characterization and argued that Orange Business Services should have provided the calculation in its initial disclosures.

The court agreed with Haran that the damages calculation should have been included in Orange Business Services’ initial disclosures. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), a party must provide a computation of each category of damages it claims without waiting for a discovery request. Because of that conclusion, the court did not address whether the interrogatory was improperly compounded.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted Haran’s request to extend fact discovery and related deadlines for 45 days, until July 13, 2023. The court also granted Haran’s request for comparator evidence concerning Global Account Directors and Integration Services Specialists and granted her request for an itemized computation of damages concerning Orange Business Services’ counterclaims. The court requested that the Clerk close the motion at Docket Number 37.