Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03051/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sheila Boggess
Plaintiff
Gannett Corporation
Defendant
The Baxter Bulletin, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

SHEILA BOGGESS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-3051

GANNETT CORPORATION and

THE BAXTER BULLETIN, INC. DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 18th day of December, 2006, comes on for

consideration Defendants' Motion To Compel (document #9), and from

said motion, and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders

as follows:

1. This discovery dispute arises in the context of an

employment discrimination case. Plaintiff asserts claims of

discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and retaliation

for opposing disability and age discrimination, leading to her

termination.

During discovery, defendants by Interrogatory requested that

plaintiff provide the name of every bank where she has maintained

an account since 2002, along with the location of the branch where

the account was opened, the date the account was opened, and the

account number. By Request for Production of Documents, they

sought a release whereby they could obtain plaintiff's financial

and banking information directly from the banks.

Plaintiff objected that her banking information was

irrelevant and was sought only for harassment purposes. 

Case 3:06-cv-03051-JLH Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

2. Defendants now move to compel plaintiff to provide the

requested information. They argue that the banking records

"likely contain information regarding her income, which is

relevant to the calculation of plaintiff's damages, if any, and to

plaintiff's mitigation of damages, if any." They also contend

that plaintiff "placed her financial condition in issue" and that

it is relevant "to her motivation for filing suit and to her

credibility as a witness."

3. Plaintiff responds that she has produced her income tax

records, social security earnings information, and medical

history, from which any information relevant to determining her

"before and after" income can be computed, and any information

about mental anguish can be gleaned. She points out that her

banking records do not particularly bear on the topics in

question, and also that they contain her husband's banking

information.

4. F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a

party 

may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of

any party. . . . Relevant information need not be

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.

Applying this standard to the discovery requests in question,

the Court finds that the Motion To Compel should be denied.

Banking records are not particularly relevant to the issue of

Case 3:06-cv-03051-JLH Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

damages or mitigation (income loss or gain), since there is no

requirement that income be placed in a bank. Tax returns and

social security records -- which do bear directly on income --

have been produced. Defendants do not, as they seem to fear, have

to take those records "at face value," but the Court does not find

it appropriate -- without some showing of a basis therefor -- to

allow defendants to conduct an audit of plaintiff's finances. 

In addition, while it is remotely possible that banking

records might bear on mental anguish or a financial motive to file

suit, that possibility is sufficiently remote in an employment

discrimination case that, without a further showing of relevancy,

it fails the "reasonably calculated" test of Rule 26(b). This is

not like the fire loss cases to which defendants compare it, where

financial information may suggest that a plaintiff had a financial

motive to commit arson. There is no suggestion that plaintiff had

a financial motive to have herself subjected to discrimination.

Indeed, merely to state the proposition is to refute it. Nor is

there any suggestion that the case is like the gambling loss case

cited by defendants, where the plaintiff's emotional distress

might have been caused by huge gambling losses. Should

information develop during plaintiff's deposition that there is,

in fact, some sort of financial sinkhole in her life that would

cause emotional distress, defendants may renew their Motion To

Compel on that basis. But as the matter now stands, the motion

Case 3:06-cv-03051-JLH Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion To Compel

(document #9) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03051-JLH Document 12 Filed 12/18/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>