Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01028/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01028-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tracy Rexroat,

Plaintiff,

v.

Arizona Department of Education, et al., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV. 11-1028-PHX-PGR ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 60.) Defendant

Arizona Department of Education (“ADE”) opposes the motion. (Doc. 69.) 

Plaintiff works as an Education Program Specialist in the Career Pathways Unit of the

ADE. On May 24, 2011, she filed a complaint alleging gender discrimination in violation of

the Equal Pay Act. (Doc. 1.) She alleges that her male counterparts receive higher salaries

for the same work and that her salary is the result of unlawful gender discrimination.

DISCUSSION

In her Motion to Compel Discovery, filed April 18, 2012, Plaintiff first asserted that

ADE’s discovery responses were “evasive” and that ADE failed to produce or properly

object to Plaintiff’s requests for electronically stored information (“ESI”). (Doc. 60 at 6.)

ADE contends that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are untimely and that Plaintiff has not

demonstrated good cause for additional discovery as required by the Court’s Amended

Scheduling Order, which set March 16, 2012, as the deadline for the completion of

Case 2:11-cv-01028-PGR Document 88 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 6
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

1

 ADE’s argument is supported by Declarations from Billie Belanger, head of Human

Resources; Terry Mendez, Information Technology Specialist; Mark Masterson, Chief

Information Officer/Associate Superintendent; and Program Director Janet Brite (Doc. 67,

Ex’s 9–12). It is clear from these Declarations that ADE produced the key documents relating

to salary and job descriptions and that complying with additional discovery requests would

be overly expensive and burdensome under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). 

- 2 -

discovery. (See Doc. 29.) 

The Court agrees that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for additional, post-deadline

discovery concerning ADE’s responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions, or for

the disclosure of additional ESI. The Court also agrees that ADE has adequately complied

with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by producing information, including

ESI, reflecting the salary and job duties of Plaintiff and her co-workers, as such information

was kept in the usual course of business.1

 (Doc. 67 at 4–10.) Plaintiff does not attempt to

counter ADE’s argument. (See Doc. 79.) In her motion, Plaintiff also complains that ADE

“refused to permit the deposition of [Terry] Mendez.” (Doc. 60 at 5.) Plaintiff does not

elaborate on this argument, and the Court agrees with ADE that Plaintiff failed to diligently

pursue the Mendez deposition. (See Doc. 67 at 12–13.)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel also sought permission to reconvene the deposition of

James Wojcik and the Rule 30(b)(6) designees. (Doc. 60 at 3–5, 11–12.) In her reply brief,

Plaintiff requests that the Court focus on these issues. (Doc. 79 at 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff

asks the Court to find that she is entitled to further depose Wojcik because his deposition was

cut short to accommodate ADE’s counsel’s medical appointment. She also seeks an order

allowing her to “reconvene the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because only one of three designees

appeared, and the sole attending designee was woefully unprepared and grossly uninformed.”

(Id. at 6.) 

ADE argues that additional depositions are unwarranted given counsel’s dilatory

handling of the original depositions. The Court agrees. 

The record indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the deposition of James Wojcik

Case 2:11-cv-01028-PGR Document 88 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 6
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 Plaintiff was represented by Zolan and attorney Cameron Hall. On May 8, 2012,

the Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel (Doc. 71.)

- 3 -

for March 9, 2012. Wojcik was served with one page of a subpoena on the evening on March

7, 2012. (Doc. 67, Ex. 13, ¶ 3.) He asked Rexroat’s counsel to move the deposition to the

following week, explaining that it would be a hardship to be out of the office on March 9.

(Id., ¶ 4.) He was told that the deposition could not be rescheduled. (Id.) Because he did not

receive the second page of the document, he was not aware of his right to object to the

subpoena. (Id., ¶ 7.) Wojcik rearranged his schedule and appeared for the deposition on

March 9, 2012. (Id.) 

ADE’s counsel also accommodated the date and time chosen by Plaintiff, but provided

advance notice that she had a medical appointment scheduled for 4:00 p.m. and would have

to leave the deposition no later than 3:15 p.m. (Doc. 67, Ex. 3, ¶ 7.) During the morning of

March 9, ADE’s counsel reminded Plaintiff’s counsel that she needed to leave for the 4:00

p.m. appointment, but informed him that she would be able to remain until 3:30. (Id.; see Ex.

14.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Zoldan,2

 started the deposition half an hour late, at 1:27

p.m., and concluded at 3:27 p.m. (Doc. 67, Ex. 16.) Mr. Wojcik and ADE’s counsel were

prepared to start the deposition at 1:00 p.m. If the deposition had started on schedule,

Plaintiff’s counsel would have had two and one half hours of examination time, which is

consistent with the two to three hours counsel had allotted for the deposition. (Id.; see Ex’s

13, 15, 16 at 1–4, 89.) 

Under Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave is required

to take a second deposition of a witness. ADE argues that leave should be denied because

Plaintiff’ counsel failed to take full advantage of the time available to depose Mr. Wojcik and

because he gave no regard to the hardship caused to Mr. Wojcik in appearing for the

deposition. (Doc. 67 at 11.) As noted, counsel started the deposition half an hour late. When

Case 2:11-cv-01028-PGR Document 88 Filed 09/17/12 Page 3 of 6
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 Ms. Brite is Plaintiff’s supervisor. She had already been deposed for a full day on

March 13, 2012.

4 Ms. Jackson was the head of ADE’s Human Resources when Plaintiff was hired.

She was replaced by Ms. Belanger in January 2011. (Doc. 67 at 13.)

- 4 -

the deposition did begin, Mr. Wojcik “was not asked many questions about [his] employment

at ADE.” (Doc. 67, Ex. 13, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff provided Mr. Wojcik less than two days’ notice

of his deposition. Unaware of his right to object to the subpoena, Mr. Wojcik rearranged his

schedule so that he could appear at his deposition on March 9. (Id., ¶ 7.) He “absolutely

oppose[s] being deposed again.” (Id., ¶ 10.) 

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not exercise diligence in

deposing Mr. Wojcik, notwithstanding the time limitations imposed by the medical

appointment of ADE’s counsel. Because Plaintiff has not shown good cause for her failure

to complete the deposition prior to the discovery deadline, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s

request to take further depose Mr. Wojcik. 

ADE also contends that a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is inappropriate. Plaintiff

asserts that only one of the three designees appeared at the deposition and that she, Ms.

Belanger, was unprepared and uninformed. (Doc. 79 at 6.) These assertions are inaccurate.

ADE designated three witnesses, Janet Brite,3

 Debbie Jackson, and Billie Belanger.4

(Doc. 67, Ex. 14.) At the request of Plaintiff’s attorneys, all three witnesses appeared at the

deposition on March 15, 2012. (Doc. 67, Ex. 21 at 153.) They arrived at 9:00 a.m. and

remained available until 6:00 p.m. (Doc. 67, Ex. 12, ¶ 8; Ex. 20, ¶ 3.)

ADE was prepared to start the deposition at 9:00 a.m. (Doc. 67, Ex. 3, ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff’s counsel didn’t start Belanger’s deposition until 9:14. (Doc. 67, Ex. 21 at 1–4.) He

took a break from 10:24 to 11:40 a.m. (Id. at 86.) The parties broke for lunch at 1:23 p.m. (Id.

at 151.) They went on the record again at 3:10, p.m., but the deposition never resumed. (Id.,

see Ex. 3, ¶ 15; Ex. 21 at 151.) Instead, Plaintiff’s attorneys claimed they were unable to

Case 2:11-cv-01028-PGR Document 88 Filed 09/17/12 Page 4 of 6
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 - 5 -

continue the deposition because they needed time to assess the “magnitude and amount of

documents” ADE had produced with its Fourth Supplemental Disclosure Statement. (Id. at

151–52, 154–55.) Mr. Zoldan stated that he would return to the deposition after assessing the

documents to see how much additional time he would need. (Id.)

ADE’s counsel and the three witnesses waited for Plaintiff’s counsel to complete their

review of the documents and resume the deposition. Based on reassurances from Plaintiff’s

counsel that the deposition would resume shortly, ADE’s counsel and witnesses waited until

6:00 p.m., at which point they left, Plaintiff having failed to renew the deposition. (See Doc.

67, Ex. 3, ¶¶ 16–20; Ex. 12, ¶ 9; Ex. 20, ¶ 5.) 

Just as the record disproves Plaintiff’s claim that two of the Rule 30(b)(6) designees

were “no shows,” it also fails to support Plaintiff’s allegation that Ms. Belanger, the only

witness Plaintiff did depose that day, was “woefully unprepared and grossly uninformed.”

Plaintiff notes that Ms. Belanger, according to her own testimony, did not specifically

prepare for her deposition and had not reviewed certain documents. (Doc. 79 at 7–11.) She

also conceded that the other designees would be better able to answer Plaintiff’s questions.

(Id.) These statements do not indicate that Belanger was unprepared. 

As ADE notes, of the three 30(b)(6) designees, Ms. Belanger had the narrowest

designations because she has been head of ADE’s Human Resources only since January of

2011. (Doc. 67, Ex. 9, ¶ 20.) She was prepared to testify about “the general categories of

information that ADE Human Resources currently maintains regarding Plaintiff’s

employment.” (Doc. 67, Ex. 14 at 1.) In addition, according to Ms. Belanger’s Declaration,

Plaintiff’s counsel never asked why she did not prepare specifically for the deposition. (Doc.

67, Ex. 9, ¶ 22.) Ms. Belanger attests that she was fully prepared to testify regarding the

designated subjects based on her extensive involvement with ADE’s defense of this action.

(Id., ¶ 21–22.) She had attended every deposition (id., ¶ 21), and spent approximately 85

hours in communication with ADE’s counsel (Doc. 67, Ex. 3, ¶ 18). Therefore, according to

Case 2:11-cv-01028-PGR Document 88 Filed 09/17/12 Page 5 of 6
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 - 6 -

ADE, “Ms. Belanger did not need to take additional steps to testify fully and competently on

ADE’s behalf regarding the designated subjects.” (Doc. 67 at 16.) 

The Court agrees. If Plaintiff’s counsel were concerned with the adequacy of Ms.

Belanger’s knowledge and preparation, they could have clarified the issue with her,

continued her scheduled deposition, or deposed Ms. Brite and Ms. Jackson, who were also

present and, as testified to by Ms. Belanger, capable of answering counsel’s specific

questions. Having failed to do so, Plaintiff cannot show that an additional deposition is

necessary based on Ms. Belanger’s alleged lack of preparation. 

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff is not entitled to an extension of the

discovery deadline for further depositions. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 60).

DATED this 17th day of September, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01028-PGR Document 88 Filed 09/17/12 Page 6 of 6