Lozada v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 March 2016
• Docket Number: Case No: 6:15-cv-711-Orl-41TBS
• Citation: Lozada v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case No: 6:15-cv-711-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla. Mar 01, 2016)
• Parties: ISMAEL LOZADA, Plaintiff, v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

ISMAEL LOZADA, Plaintiff, v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., Defendant.

Case No: 6:15-cv-711-Orl-41TBS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

March 1, 2016

ORDER

This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. 20) and Plaintiff's Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline (Doc. 21). Defendant has filed responses in opposition to both motions (Docs. 25-26). For the reasons that follow, the motions are due to be denied.

I. Background

Defendant employed Plaintiff on a part-time basis at its store in Kissimmee, Florida (Doc. 2, ¶ 7; Doc. 25 at 1). In February, 2015, Defendant's employees reported disturbing conduct by Plaintiff to the store manager and co-manager. They related that Plaintiff had said he was angry because there was no full-time position for him (Doc. 25 at 1). Plaintiff had told one employee to "watch your back" because Plaintiff was going to "shoot up the place." (Id.). Plaintiff had told another employee he was going to start a fight with his managers who "would not like what they will see." (Id. at 2). Plaintiff had displayed pictures of guns, told co-workers he kept a gun in his car, and said he was going to "shoot everyone" if he did not obtain a full-time position (Id.). The employees who reported hearing these statements and seeing the pictures gave written statements, all of which have been produced to Plaintiff (Id. at 2-3, 15-19). Defendant reported Plaintiff's behavior to law enforcement, and Osceola County Deputy Sheriff Tate Wilson responded to the store (Id. at 3). The store manager briefed Deputy Wilson who went directly to Plaintiff's home to interview him (Id. at 4). Plaintiff told Deputy Wilson he wanted a full-time position, would be upset if he was not given one, and said he owned a gun (Id. at 22). Deputy Wilson determined to take Plaintiff into custody pursuant to Florida's Baker Act.¹ In his report the deputy wrote:

Based on the above information, I have reason to believe [Plaintiff] is unable to determine for himself whether an examination is necessary and there is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment he would cause serious bodily harm to himself or others as evidenced by the above described statements. I transported [Plaintiff] to the Park Place Behavioral Health Care Facility for treatment and evaluation. A report was taken to document the incident.

(Id.). Plaintiff was held against his will at Park Place for approximately 36 hours (Doc. 2, ¶¶ 10-11). After he was released, Defendant informed Plaintiff that his employment had been terminated (Doc. 20 at 2). Plaintiff brings this lawsuit for false arrest, wrongful confinement, libel, slander, and malicious prosecution (Doc. 2). Defendant removed the case from state court to this Court based upon the existence of diversity jurisdiction (Doc. 1).

On August 4, 2015, Plaintiff propounded his first request for production to Defendant (Doc. 20 at 2). Defendant served a timely response which included objections to eight of the requests (Id. at 3). Plaintiff filed a motion to compel production(Id.). After the motion was filed counsel agreed that Plaintiff would withdraw the motion to compel, and Defendant would amend and supplement its responses to the requests for production (Doc. 25 at 24-25). The motion to compel was withdrawn, and Defendant served its amended response in which it withdrew its objections to two requests while maintaining and expanding upon its objections to the remaining six requests (Doc. 20 at 3). The requests to which Defendant objects seek its personnel files for the three employees who reported Plaintiff's statements, the store manager, co-manager, and district manager (Id. at 3-5). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel documents in response to these requests. Request number 5 and Defendant's initial and supplemental responses are representative of all six requests and responses:

REQUEST: Michael Licari's entire employee file, including both positive and negative comments concerning Michal Licari from any co-workers, supervisors, or staff of Defendant.

INITIAL RESPONSE: Objection. This request is overbroad and unduly burdensome, harassing and calls for confidential information. Further, this request seeks documents that are confidential, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Hobby Lobby objects to this request on the basis that Michael Licari's entire employment file is not relevant to the issues or defenses in this case, and this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial. Specifically, in this case, Plaintiff has alleged claims against Hobby Lobby for libel, false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff has not asserted any employment claims or any claims where the information contained in his supervisor's employment file could be relevant. Moreover, this employment file contains confidential and personal information. Hobby Lobby has produced all information regarding Michael Licari as it relates to the incident surrounding Plaintiff's claims.

(Doc. 20 at 3-4).

II. Standard

"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). As the rule makes clear, there are limits to what a party may discover.

Parties may serve requests "to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample" documents, electronically stored information, or other "tangible things" that are "in the responding party's possession, custody, or control." FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1). Requests "(A) must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected; (B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for the inspection ... ; and (C) may specify the form or forms in which the electronically stored information is to be produced." FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(1). The recipient of a request for production has 30 days to respond. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A). For each request, the responding party "must either state that inspection ... will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons." FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Documents must be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must be "organize[d] and label[ed] to correspond to the categories in the request." FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). "[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response" to a discovery request is "treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond." FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4).

When a party "fails to respond that inspection will be permitted-or fails to permit inspection-as requested under Rule 34," the requesting party can move for an order compelling production. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action." FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1). See also M.D. FLA. R. 3.01(g). Plaintiff has satisfied this prerequisite. "The proponent of a motion to compel discovery ... bears the initial burden of proving that the information sought is relevant." Moore v. Lender Processing Servs. Inc., No. 3:12-CV-205-J, 2013 WL 2447948, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2013) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Diamond State Ins. Co. v. His House, Inc., No. 10-20039-CIV, 2011 WL 146837, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2011)).

III. Discussion

Defendant does not have standing to assert its employees' privacy rights in their personnel files. Aidone v. Nationwide Auto Guard, LLC, No. 13-60893-civ, 985 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Adelman v. Boy Scouts of Am., No. 10-22236-civ, 276 F.R.D. 681, 694 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2011)). But, Defendant does have standing to oppose the production of employee personnel files on the ground that the information is not relevant to the litigation. The Court has also decided to consider the employees' privacy interests despite Defendant's lack of standing on account of the nature of the files and the Court's understanding that the employees are unaware that the files are being sought and have not had an opportunity to object to the requests.

Defendant's original objections are of the improper boilerplate variety. "'Parties are not permitted to assert these types of conclusory, boilerplate objections that fail to explain the precise grounds that make the request objectionable.'" Arthrex, Inc. v.Parcus Med., LLC, No. 2:11-cv-694-FtM-29SPC, 2012 WL 5382050, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2012) (quoting Martin v. Zale Delaware, Inc., No. 8:08-CV-47-T-27EAJ, 2008 WL 5255555 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2008)); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-749-Orl-41TBS, 2015 WL 1470971, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015); Martin, 2008 WL 5255555 at * 1 ("Objections stating that a request is 'vague,' 'overly broad,' or 'unduly burdensome' are meaningless standing alone.").

Plaintiff argues that Defendant's incorporation of more specific objections into its supplemental responses is not allowed and the Court should rule based upon Defendant's original objections. Defendant asserts that its supplemental objections are proper based upon the agreement of counsel that the original motion to compel would be withdrawn, and that Defendant would supplement its response. Defendant characterizes this as an agreement...