Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02196-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Olga A. Howard, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, N.A., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2196-PHX-ECV

ORDER

Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Compel (Doc. #30).

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #23) and related motions are also pending,

but this order addresses only the cross-motion to compel, as it may impact how the court

resolves the other motions.

Plaintiff contends in the cross-motion that Defendant has not adequately responded

to a request for production of documents. Plaintiff claims that Defendant has not fully

produced Plaintiff's personnel file, the personnel file of Ricky T. Lee, and records of any

other discrimination complaints in Arizona since January 2004.

Regarding Plaintiff's personnel file, Defendant asserts that it has already disclosed the

complete file despite its suggestion in the response to Plaintiff's request for production that

it was disclosing only a portion of the file. Doc. #34 at 2. Plaintiff replies that Defendant's

assertion is suspect given that Plaintiff has her own copies of documents one would expect

to find in a personnel file but that were not part of Defendant's disclosure. Doc. #36 at 2.

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 57 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Given the ambiguity in its response to the request for production and the absence of expected

documents from the materials that were disclosed, Defendant will be ordered to again search

for and produce any documents in Plaintiff's personnel file or related files. The court will

further order that if the search reveals no new materials, Defendant must submit a signed

certification to the court explaining the efforts to locate additional documents and that none

were found.

Regarding the personnel file of Robert T. Lee, the court recognizes the importance of

safeguarding an individual's privacy. Defendant, however, has not sought a protective order

under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, based on the

information presented by the parties, it appears that information in Mr. Lee's file may be

relevant to one or more of Plaintiff's claims. In an effort to balance the privacy concerns with

Plaintiff's right to discovery, the court will direct Defendant to provide Mr. Lee's complete

personnel and related files to the court under seal. The court will conduct an in camera

review of the information and determine if disclosure is required.

Finally, as to Plaintiff's request for records of all other allegations of discrimination

against Defendant in Arizona since 2004, the court agrees with Defendant that the request

is unduly burdensome. Defendant will not be required to produce anything beyond what it

has already produced in response to this request for production. Plaintiff has not sufficiently

demonstrated that such information would be relevant to her claims. Plaintiff has withdrawn

her religious discrimination claim leaving only one discrimination claim. Plaintiff's

allegations in support of that claim are sparse. Under these circumstances, requiring

Defendant to produce documents relating to all allegations of discrimination by employees

over the last three years is an unwarranted burden.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 57 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Compel (Doc. #30) is granted in part and denied

in part; 

That Defendant shall search for and produce all documents in Plaintiff's personnel and

related files. If the search reveals no new documents, Defendant shall submit a signed

certification to the court explaining the efforts to locate additional documents and that none

were found;

That on or before March 17, 2005, Defendant shall submit Mr. Lee's complete

personnel and related files to the court under seal. The court will then conduct an in camera

review of the information and determine if disclosure is required; and

That Plaintiff's request to compel additional disclosure regarding other allegations of

discrimination since 2004 is denied. 

DATED this 27th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02196-ECV Document 57 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 3