Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Fair Oaks Dairy Farms, LLC

• Decision Date: 01 August 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 2:11 cv 265
• Parties: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. FAIR OAKS DAIRY FARMS, LLC; FAIR OAKS DAIRY PRODUCTS, LLC dba Fair Oaks Farms, Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff

v. FAIR OAKS DAIRY FARMS, LLC;FAIR OAKS DAIRY PRODUCTS, LLC dba Fair Oaks Farms, Defendants

CIVIL NO. 2:11 cv 265

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Dated: August 1, 2012

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Stay Discovery as to Fair Oaks Dairy Farms, LLC Only [DE 30] filed by the defendant, Fair Oaks Dairy Farms LLC, on April 4, 2012, and the Motion for Protective Order Regarding Immigration Status and/or Employment History [DE 35] filed by the plaintiff, EEOC, on May 25, 2012. For the following reasons, the Motion to Stay [DE 30] is DENIED, and the Motion for Protective Order [DE 35] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Background

Martha Marquez filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on October 20, 2010, alleging that she was sexually harassed while employed by the defendants, Fair Oaks Dairy Farms and Fair Oaks Dairy Products. She accused the manager of the cheese and milk department of touching her vagina through her clothing andexposing his genitalia. After investigating Marquez's allegations, the EEOC found the evidence substantiated her claim and attempted to resolve the matter through conciliation. When conciliation failed, the EEOC filed its complaint on July 22, 2011, against Dairy Farms, alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC amended its complaint on September 29, 2011, to add Dairy Products. Dairy Farms subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it did not employ Marquez or the alleged harasser and could not be held liable for the incident. The EEOC opposed the motion. On April 4, 2012, Dairy Farms filed a motion to stay discovery pending the district court's ruling on its motion to dismiss. Dairy Farms argues that subjecting it to discovery would be burdensome, turn up irrelevant information, and cause unnecessary expense.

On May 4, 2012, Dairy Products served the EEOC and Marquez with discovery requests seeking Marquez's resume, educational diplomas, transcripts, attendance record, immigrant or non-immigrant visa, passport, birth certificate, and state and federal tax returns. Dairy Products also inquired into Marquez's efforts to obtain subsequent employment and actual subsequent employment. Dairy Products contends that the information isrelevant background information, will shed light on the damages Marquez suffered, and will support its affirmative defenses.

In the complaint, the EEOC states that it seeks "appropriate compensation for past pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices." In a separate paragraph, the EEOC requests "compensation for past nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices". The EEOC sent correspondence to Dairy Product's counsel stating that it does not seek back pay, front pay, reinstatement, or any other sort of pecuniary compensatory damages. Marquez's damages are limited to the emotional distress caused by the sexual harassment she experienced. Because of this limitation, the EEOC maintains that Dairy Product's discovery requests seek irrelevant information and seeks a protective order.

Discussion

A court has incidental power to stay proceedings, which stems from its inherent power to manage its docket. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Walker v. Monsanto Co. Pension Plan, 472 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1054 (S.D. Ill. 2006). The decision to grant a stay is committed to the sound discretion of the court and must be exercised consistent with principles of fairness and judicial economy. Brooks v. Merck & Co., 443 F.Supp.2d 994, 997 (S.D.Ill. 2006); Rutherford v. Merck & Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 842, 845 (S.D. Ill. 2006); George v. Kraft Foods Global, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92886, *4 (S.D. Ill. 2006). "Courts often consider the following factors when deciding whether to stay an action: (i) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-moving party, (ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial, and (iii) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court." Abbott Laboratories v. Matrix Laboratories, Inc., 2009 WL 3719214, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2009). "The general test for imposing a stay requires the court to 'balance interests favoring a stay against interests frustrated by the action' in light of the 'court's paramount obligation to exercise jurisdiction timely in cases properly before it.'" SanDisk Corp. v. Phison Electronics Corp., 538 F.Supp.2d 1060, 1066 (W.D. Wis. 2008) (citing Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The moving party must show good cause to stay discovery. Castrillon v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., 2011 WL 4538089, *1 (S.D. Ind. 2011) (applying Rule 26(c) good cause standard to motion to stay); DSM Desotech, Inc. v. 3D Systems Corp., 2008 WL 4812440, *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2008) (same).

"The filing of a motion to dismiss by itself does not mandate a stay of discovery pending resolution of that motion, nor does the right to discovery continue in light of a pending dispositive motion." Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. v. Granite Broadcasting Corp., 2011 WL 4345432, *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 15, 2011) (citing Duneland Dialysis LLC v. Anthem Ins. Co., Inc., 2010 WL 1418392, *2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 6, 2010) (quoting Simstad v. Scheub, 2008 WL 1914268, *1 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 29, 2008)). The decision to stay a case pending ruling on a motion to dismiss must be made on a case by case basis. "A stay is appropriate where the motion to dismiss can resolve the case, where ongoing discovery is unlikely to produce facts necessary to defeat the motion, or where the motion raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue, such as a challenge to plaintiff's standing." Nexstar Broadcasting, 2011 WL 4345432 at *2. The court gives greater consideration to motions to stay discovery where the matter involves particularly complex issues. Nexstar Broadcasting, 2011 WL 4345432 at *3. The court also will weigh the timeliness of the request. Castrillon, 2011 WL 4538089 at *2.

Dairy Farms has provided no more than a bare bones argument that any discovery would be burdensome because it filed a motion to dismiss. However, Dairy Farms is not entitled to have discovery stayed solely because it filed a motion to dismiss. DairyFarms must provide some explanation of the burden it will suffer as a result. Dairy Farms has not shown that the motion to dismiss will resolve the case, that the pending discovery requests are unrelated to the motion to dismiss, or that the motion raises a potentially dispositive threshold issue.

Dairy Farms' primary argument is that it will be dismissed from the case if its motion to dismiss is granted. In its motion to dismiss, Dairy Farms argues that it did not employ Marquez or the alleged harasser and that Title VII only extends to employers. However, the pending discovery requests appear to bear on the motion to dismiss and may help the EEOC defeat it. The EEOC has inquired into the organizational and ownership structure of Dairy Farms and Dairy Products which may help it determine who is liable for the alleged harassment. The court is less inclined to stay discovery if it may bear on the motion to dismiss.

Additionally, Dairy Farms has not argued that it will not be required to submit any discovery if the case is dismissed against it. If Dairy Farms is dismissed, the case would remain ongoing between Dairy Products and the EEOC. If there is a relationship between Dairy Farms and Dairy Products, Dairy Farms may be subjected to third-party discovery. Dairy Farms has not shown how its burden would be decreased by issuing a stay or what discovery would be eliminated. Without further explanation, Dairy Farms'only support is that if it is dismissed from the case "much of the information sought by Plaintiff from Farms will be irrelevant." Dairy Farms must do more than make boilerplate assumptions and should have provided specific examples of the potential irrelevancy. See Castrillon, 2011 WL 4539089 at *2 (denying motion to stay in part because the moving party still would have to produce discovery if its motion to dismiss was granted and because the moving party did not identify the specific requests that it alleged were burdensome). The court cannot rely solely on Dairy Farms' assertion without greater explanation.

Dairy Farms has not pointed to a single discovery request that it alleges would be overly burdensome. See Castrillon, 2011 WL 4538089 at *2 (denying motion to stay in part because moving party did not identify specific discovery requests that were unduly burdensome or expensive). Again, Dairy Farms simply states that the discovery would be burdensome and expensive without greater detail. The insufficiencies are fatal to its request.

The only factor that weighs in favor of Dairy Farms' request is that the court has yet to hold a Rule 16(b) scheduling conference and set discovery deadlines. Absent deadlines, the EEOC will suffer little prejudice from a short stay of discovery. However, this single factor does not overcome the insufficienciesthat are abundant in Dairy Farms' motion. Dairy Farms has not provided a single explanation of the burden it hopes to escape by staying discovery, nor has it shown how the discovery requests are overly burdensome. Dairy Farms cannot rely solely on the fact that it filed a motion to dismiss as a means of requesting a stay. See Castrillon, 2011 WL 4538089 at *2 (denying motion to stay because it was filed five months after the motion to dismiss, it was not evident the motion to dismiss would be granted, the motion to dismiss would not resolve all of the plaintiff's claims because her claims against two defendants would remain pending and would likely require the party requesting the stay to produce...