Aramburu v. Boeing Co.
Decision Date | 14 March 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 93-4064-SAC.,93-4064-SAC. |
Citation | 885 F. Supp. 1434 |
Parties | Santiago ARAMBURU, Plaintiff, v. The BOEING COMPANY d/b/a Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Wichita Division Boeing Corporation, and Larry Whitesell, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Harold S. Youngentob, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff.
Gloria G. Flentje, J. Steven Massoni, Foulston & Siefkin, Wichita, KS, for defendants.
On March 22, 1993, the plaintiff, Santiago Aramburu, commenced this action against his former employer, The Boeing Company (Boeing). Aramburu's amended complaint seeks to recover damages and secure equitable relief to redress the deprivation of rights secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title I of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have discriminated against him on the basis of his Mexican American ancestry, as well as his work-related disability of carpal tunnel syndrome. Aramburu claims to have suffered discrimination at the hands of Larry Whitesell, his supervisor. The plaintiff's discrimination claims are based upon both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. Boeing denies the plaintiff's allegations, arguing that the plaintiff was terminated based upon his failure to maintain acceptable attendance.
On December 28, 1993, this court entered a memorandum and order dismissing the plaintiff's ADA claim and his protected speech claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See Aramburu v. The Boeing Co., No. 93-4064-SAC, 1993 WL 544567, 1993 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 18620 (D.Kan. Dec. 29, 1993).
On September 22, 1994, the magistrate judge entered two separate memorandum and orders. See (Dk. 87 and 88). Each order addressed certain issues presented by Aramburu's motion to compel discovery (Dk. 39). While certain portions of the plaintiff's requests for discovery were denied, in large part, those orders were generally favorable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not seek review of those orders.
On October 6, 1994, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(a) and D.Kan.Rule 604, Boeing filed objections to the September 22, 1994, memorandum and orders entered by the magistrate judge. Boeing advances these objections to those orders: (1) The magistrate judge committed error by failing to recognize the self-critical analysis privilege; and (2) The magistrate judge committed error by allowing voluminous discovery of irrelevant material. Specifically, Boeing contends that permitting "Plaintiff's counsel to fish through approximately 1,700 personnel files for some evidence to support his client's discrimination claims is unwarranted, and will make this lawsuit wholly unwieldy."1
Aramburu responds, arguing that the magistrate judge's decisions were correctly decided. Aramburu contends that "the defendants have simply not negotiated in good faith to resolve discovery disputes." The plaintiff contends that in light of the defendants' attempts to "stonewall" the discovery process, and in the absence of convincing evidence to support the defendants' arguments against discovery, the magistrate judge's rulings correctly reflect the broad scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
As to nondispositive pretrial matters, the district court reviews the magistrate judge's order under a clearly erroneous or contrary to the law standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Continental Bank, N.A. v. Caton, 136 F.R.D. 691, 693 (D.Kan.1991).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) provides in pertinent part:
The "Notes of Advisory Committee Rules" concerning the 1946 Amendment to 26(b) state:
The amendments to subdivision (b) make clear the broad scope of examination and that it may cover not only evidence for use at trial but also inquiry into matters themselves inadmissible as evidence but which will lead to the discovery of such evidence. The purpose of discovery is to allow a broad search for facts, the names of witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the preparation or presentation of his case.
In Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978), the Supreme Court stated:
The key phrase in this definition — "relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action" — has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). Consistently with the notice-pleading system established by the Rules, discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues. Id., at 500-501, 67 S.Ct. at 388-389, 91 L.Ed. 451. Nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case, for a variety of fact-oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits. (footnote omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has held that "the trial court has broad discretion as to the control of discovery, ... and rulings will not set aside short of an abuse of discretion." Marsee v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 866 F.2d 319, 326 (10th Cir.1989) (quoting Shaklee Corp. v. Gunnell, 748 F.2d 548, 550 (10th Cir.1984) (citations omitted)). "In particular, rulings on relevancy of material sought for discovery are within the trial court's discretion." Marsee, 866 F.2d at 326.
The party opposing the discovery has the burden of proving its lack of relevance. Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., No. 85-1636-C, 1992 WL 223816, 1992 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14094 (D.Kan. Aug. 24, 1992) (citing Flora v. Hamilton, 81 F.R.D. 576, 578 (M.D.N.C. 1978)).
Boeing contends that the magistrate judge committed error by failing to recognize the self-critical analysis privilege. Boeing contends that forcing it to disclose portions of its affirmative action plans and related documents reflecting its subjective analysis of its own performance in meeting its objectively established affirmative action goals will have a chilling effect on all employers' full compliance with equal employment opportunity laws. Boeing contends that Magistrate Judge Rushfelt's opinion in Hoffman v. United Telecommunications, 117 F.R.D. 440, 442 (D.Kan.1987) ( ), correctly states the law of the District of Kansas. Boeing contends that, contrary to the magistrate judge's analysis, the self-critical analysis privilege is well recognized among the lower courts and that this court should recognize the privilege for sound policy reasons.
Aramburu responds, arguing that the magistrate judge correctly refused to recognize the privilege of self-critical analysis. Aramburu contends that the magistrate judge's memorandum and order correctly states the law and should be affirmed for the reasons articulated in that opinion.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter which is not privileged that is relevant to the action or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence acknowledge the authority of the federal courts to continue the evolutionary development of new privileges "in light of reason and experience." Fed.R.Evid. 501;2Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S.Ct. 906, 911, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980).
The Supreme Court has recognized that the existence of privileges "contravene the fundamental principle that `the public ... has a right to every man's evidence.'" Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S.Ct. at 912 (quoting United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331, 70 S.Ct. 724, 730, 94 L.Ed. 884 (1950)). As such, privileges are "not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for the truth." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); see Univ....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bryant Woods Inn, Inc. v. Howard County, Md.
...646 F.2d 444, 451 (10th Cir.1981). See also Reidt v. County of Trempealeau, 975 F.2d 1336, 1341 (7th Cir.1992); Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F.Supp. 1434, 1443-1444 (D.Kan.1995); Stambaugh v. Kansas Dep't of Corrections, 151 F.R.D. 664, 668 (D.Kan.1993); Wynn v. Columbus Mun. Separate School......
-
Tanner v. McMurray
...compliance with the law or with professional standards.’ " Dorato v. Smith, 163 F. Supp. 3d at 891 (quoting Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F. Supp. 1434, 1438 (D. Kan. 1995) (Crow, J.)). The concern is that "absent this type of privilege individuals and organizations will not candidly evaluate......
-
Dorato v. Smith
...socially useful investigations and evaluations or compliance with the law or with professional standards.” Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F.Supp. 1434, 1438 (D.Kan.1995) (Crow, J.). The Defendants place their case within this rationale, arguing that the privilege assures “that subordinates wit......
-
Aramburu v. Boeing Co.
...in part Boeing's objections to the memorandum and orders entered by the magistrate judge on September 22, 1994. See Aramburu v. Boeing, 885 F.Supp. 1434 (D.Kan.1995). This case comes before the court upon the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants seek summary judgment on a......
-
Discovery of Information and Documents from a Litigant's Former Employees: Synergy and Synthesis of Civil Rules, Ethical Standards, Privilege Doctrines, and Common Law Principles
...Am. Haw. Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423, 425 n.1 (9th Cir. 1992) (refusing to recognize self-analysis privilege); Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F. Supp. 1434 (D. Kan. 1995) (refusing to deny plaintiff's discovery requests based on defen-dant's assertion of self-critical analysis privilege in Tit......
-
Defendant's Documents
...of documents contained therein, include: w Overbroad; undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (2); Aramburu v. The Boeing Company, 885 F. Supp. 1434 (8th Cir. 1995). w Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 803. w Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401. w Prejudicial impact outweighs probative value. Fed. R. Evid. 403. ......
-
CHAPTER 9 - 9-5 Interrogatory Responses
...a document, the authenticity of which had already been admitted, were unreasonably duplicative and cumulative); Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F. Supp. 1434, 1444 (D. Kan. 1995) (holding that when information already provided by the defendant-employer should have been enough for the plaintiff-......
-
CHAPTER 8 - 8-5 Objections
...a document, the authenticity of which had already been admitted, were unreasonably duplicative and cumulative); Aramburu v. Boeing Co., 885 F. Supp. 1434, 1444 (D. Kan. 1995) (holding that when information already provided by the defendant-employer should have been enough for the plaintiff-......