Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01431/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01431-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sensient Dehydrated Flavors Company
Defendant
Sensient Dehydrated Flavors, LLC
Defendant
Sensient Natural Ingredients, LLC
Defendant
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) moves to compel 

Defendant Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC (“SNI” or “Defendant”)1to respond and produce 

responsive documents to EEOC’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, No. 68 and EEOC’s 

Interrogatory, Set One, No. 1. (Doc. 44). SNI opposed the motion on July 22, 2016, and EEOC 

replied on July 29, 2016. The Court deemed the matter suitable for decision without oral argument 

and vacated the hearing scheduled for August 5, 2016. Local Rule 230(g). Having considered the 

parties’ briefs and the record in this matter, the EEOC’s motion to compel shall be DENIED.

 

1

Defendant SNI claims it was incorrectly identified in the Complaint as “Sensient Natural Ingredients, LLC.” 

Defendant SNI also represents that it was formerly known as Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC, which also was 

incorrectly identified in the Complaint as “Sensient Dehydrated Flavors, LLC”, and is successor in interest to Sensient 

Dehydrated Flavors Company. (Doc. 11). 

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SENSIENT DEHYDRATED FLAVORS 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DEFENDANT SENSIENT NATURAL 

INGREDIENTS TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE 

DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION TO EEOC’S 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68 AND 

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

(Doc. 44)

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 12
2

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

BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2015, the EEOC instituted this action “to correct unlawful employment 

practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Maria Rodriquez and a class of 

similarly aggrieved individuals who were adversely affected by such practices” pursuant to Section 

107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (incorporating the powers, remedies, and procedures set 

forth in Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 200e-5, into 

ADA enforcement actions). (Doc. 1, Compl. at p. 1). 

Title VII sets out a “detailed, multi-step procedure through which the [EEOC] enforces the 

statute’s prohibition on employment discrimination.” Mach Mining, LLC. V. EEOC, 575 U.S.---, ---, 

135 S.Ct. 1645, 1649, 191 L.Ed.2d 607 (2015). The process starts with the EEOC’s receipt of a 

charge of unlawful workplace practice. Id. Then, “the EEOC notifies the employer of the complaint 

and undertakes an investigation.” Id. “If the Commission finds no ‘reasonable cause’ to think that the 

allegation has merit, it dismisses the charge and notifies the parties.” Id. At that point, the 

complainant may sue the employer in his or her name. Id. “If, on the other hand, the Commission 

finds reasonable cause, it must first ‘endeavor to eliminate [the] alleged unlawful employment practice 

by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–

5(b)). If the Commission is unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement, then the EEOC 

may sue the employer. Id.

According to the complaint, this process began when Maria Rodriguez filed a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of the ADA. On September 27, 2013, the EEOC 

issued a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that SNI had violated the ADA 

and inviting SNI to join the EEOC in informal conciliation. The parties engaged in conciliation, but 

the EEOC was unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement. Thus, on December 5, 2014, 

the EEOC issued a Notice of Failure of Conciliation. (Doc. 1, Compl. at ¶¶ 17-21). Thereafter, on 

September 15, 2016, the EEOC filed this legal action. (Doc. 1). 

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 12
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

In the complaint, the EEOC alleged that SNI had engaged in the following unlawful 

employment practices:

a. Discharging Maria Rodriguez and a class of similarly aggrieved disabled employees, 

including, but not limited to Bertha Montoya, Magdalena Gonzalez, and Francisco 

Cuevas, due to these employees’ use of leave as a reasonable accommodation.

b. Discharging Maria Rodriguez and a class of similarly aggrieved employees, including 

but not limited to Bertha Montoya and Magdalena Gonzalez, because of their actual 

or perceived disabilities when Defendants refused to allow them to return to work 

despite these employees having been released to work without restrictions.

c. Failing to engage in the interaction process and provide reasonable accommodations 

for the known disabilities of employees in terminating employees, including but not 

limited to George Briscoe, by providing additional leave and instead discharging 

them for exceeding Defendants’ maximum leave policy. 

(Doc. 1, Compl. at ¶ 23). 

The EEOC further alleged:

Since at least 2010, [SNI] strictly applied a leave policy which permitted seven months 

maximum of leave at which time employees who exceeded such leave were terminated. 

Pursuant to the policy, Defendants failed to engage in the interactive process and provide 

a reasonable accommodation of additional leave for these employees in violation of the 

ADA.

(Doc. 1, Compl. at ¶ 24). SNI answered the complaint on December 15, 2015. (Doc. 11). 

On February 16, 2016, the EEOC served its Request for Production of Documents on SNI. On 

February 19, 2016, the EEOC then served Interrogatories on SNI. SNI requested a sixty-day extension 

of time to respond to the EEOC’s discovery requests. The EEOC granted this request, with the 

proviso that SNI would provide a response to Interrogatory 1 by April 18, 2016. SNI served its 

objection to Interrogatory No. 1 on April 18, 2016. (Doc. 44-1 at p. 7.) On April 4, 2016, the Court 

issued a preliminary scheduling order and set the deadline for the EEOC to identify all claimants in 

this action as September 30, 2016. (Doc. 16). On May 16, 2016, SNI served its responses to the 

EEOC’s documents requests. At issue in this dispute are SNI’s responses to Interrogatory No. 1 and 

Document Request No. 68. 

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 12
4

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 

IDENTIFY all of YOUR employees at the Livingston, California facility

currently operated by SNI between from January 1, 2013, to the present, including, but 

not limited to, the following information:

a. Name;

b. Date of Birth;

c. Last known address, phone number, and electronic mail; 

d. Dates of Employment (hire date and date of separation);

e. If separated from employment, the reason for separation; 

f. Department worked; 

g. Position(s) worked; and

h. Supervisor(s).

OBJECTIONS:

Defendant Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC ("SNI") objects that Interrogatory 

No. 1 is not relevant or proportional to the needs of this case, as required by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b). The EEOC poses this Interrogatory to identify individuals employed by SNI 

after the conclusion of the EEOC’s investigation in this matter. To Defendant's 

understanding, the EEOC has identified no claimants in its Initial Disclosures who were 

employed during this time period. Given that SNI disclosed employee information to the 

EEOC during the course of the Agency’s investigation, the only apparent purpose of this 

inquiry is to look for new potential claimants/violations not currently known to the 

Agency, not known to the Agency during its investigation, and not reasonably likely to 

have been identified by the Agency in the course of its investigation. The Agency could 

not have provided notice to SNI of any such potential claimants/violations, or met its 

obligation to investigate or conciliate any such potential claimants/violations. Such an 

endeavor falls outside the bounds of this action, as well as the scope of permissible 

discovery in this action. See, Arizona ex rel. Home v. Geo Group, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 4646, *32-37 (9th Cir. March 14, 2016), citing Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 

349 F.3d 634, 645 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that claim based on events that occurred after 

right-to-sue letter issued could not reasonably have been expected to grow out of EEOC 

investigation); Freeman v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 291 F.3d 632, 637 (9th Cir. 

2002) (finding that allegations “which surfaced for the first time in plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint, clearly would not have been necessary to, or addressed in, the 

scope of an investigation [into the underlying charge]”); EEOC v. Farmer Bros., 31 F.3d

891 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding that layoff claim fell within scope of action, reasoning that 

“[n]ot only did the EEOC charge provide adequate notice to Farmer Bros. of Estrada’s 

discriminatory layoff claim, but also in order to evaluate (or even to understand) 

Estrada’s theory of the case, it was necessary for the [**21] EEOC to investigate the 

circumstances of Estrada’s layoff”); EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 553 F.2d 579, 580 (9th Cir. 

1976) (“[T]he original charge is sufficient to support EEOC administrative action, as well 

as an EEOC civil suit, for any discrimination stated in the charge itself or discovered in 

the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge, provided such additional 

discrimination was included in the EEOC “reasonable cause” determination and was 

followed by compliance with the conciliation procedures of the Act.”); EEOC v. 

Occidental, 535 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1976) (same). See also EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, 

Inc., 679 F.3d 657, 677 (8th Cir. 2012) (dismissing suit on of 67 women identified as 

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 4 of 12
5

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

claimants only after commencement of federal litigation, finding Agency “wholly failed 

to satisfy its statutory pre-suit obligations as to these 67 women”); EEOC v. American 

Samoa Government, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144324, *20-21 (D. Hawaii October 5,

2012) (explaining that “[t]his limit on the scope of EEOC claims in a civil suit also serves 

to limit the discovery the EEOC may conduct in a civil action”); EEOC v. Dillard Store 

Servs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76206 (S.D. Cal. July 14, 2011) (“The EEOC may not use 

discovery in the resulting lawsuit ‘as a fishing expedition’ to uncover more violations.”

(internal quotations omitted).)

In addition, the type of employee information sought is not relevant or 

proportional to the needs of this case. The Agency’s Complaint challenges whether SNI’s 

alleged actions surrounding specified employees’ leaves of absence violated the ADA. 

Discovery concerning all employees, including their personal data and reasons for 

separation (regardless of the reason), has no bearing on this limited scope of the alleged 

violations.

Based on the foregoing Objections, SNI will not answer this Interrogatory, other 

than to refer the EEOC to the information provided by SNI during the course of the 

investigation. SNI would be available to meet and confer regarding a narrowed scope for 

this Interrogatory, which takes into account the issues identified above.

EEOC’s REQUEST NO. 68:

IDENTIFY and produce all DOCUMENTS which pertain, constitute, or reflect a

complete list of YOUR employees at the Livingston, California facility currently 

operated by SNI from January 1, 2013 through the present, including the following 

information:

a. Name;

b. Date of Birth;

c. Last known address and phone number;

d. Dates of Employment (hire date and date of separation, if any);

e. If separated from employment, the reason for separation;

g. Department worked;

h. Position(s) worked;

j. Whether the employee requested an accommodation under the Americans

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); and

k. Whether the accommodation was granted.

RESPONSE REQUEST NO. 68:

See Opening Objection No. 2.[

2

] SNI objects to this Request as overbroad and 

unduly burdensome. This Request also seeks information that is neither relevant nor 

 

2

Opening Objection No. 2 states: 

The EEOC has made requests for documents for the time period after the conclusion of the EEOC’s 

investigation in September 2013. SNI objects to any request in this category that is posed for the purpose 

of identifying new potential claimants/violations beyond those currently known to the Agency, know to the 

Agency during its investigation, or reasonably likely to have been identify by the Agency in the course of 

its investigation. The Agency could not have provided notice to SNI of any such potential 

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 5 of 12
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

proportional to the needs of the case. After a lengthy investigation, during which it 

obtained voluminous information and employee data, including information on leaves of 

absence and employee contact information, the EEOC has identified eight alleged 

claimants. Further, the EEOC has identified the specific alleged unlawful employment 

practices in its Complaint, as set forth in Paragraphs 23 (a)-(c) and 24. Filing a multiclaimant Complaint under the ADA as to specific alleged unlawful employment practices 

does not grant the EEOC an on-going license to vet retrospectively and challenge an 

employer's practices with respect to accommodations of any type, at any time. The EEOC 

is far overreaching the scope of its action with this Request.

Based on the foregoing Objections, SNI will not produce documents responsive to 

this Request.

(Docs. 44-8 and 44-9; Exs. G and H to Pl’s Motion to Compel). 

In addition to an order compelling SNI to respond to these discovery requests, the EEOC also 

requests that its deadline to identify any potential claimants be extended an additional three months. 

III. Discussion

The primary disagreement between the parties is whether the EEOC may obtain discovery of 

the requested employee information, including whether the EEOC is entitled to such information for 

the time period after the EEOC’s reasonable cause determination issued on September 27, 2013. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). In determining the proportional needs of the case, consideration must 

be given to “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.” Id. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible to be discoverable. 

Id.

The Court finds that the EEOC’s discovery requests seek information that is not relevant to a 

claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs of the case. As discussed, the EEOC’s 

allegations in this action relate to (1) the discharge of disabled employees due to their use of leave as a 

 

claimants/violations, or met its obligation to investigate or conciliate as to such potential 

claimants/violations. Such an endeavor falls outside the bounds of this action, as well as the scope of 

permissible discovery in this action. [Citations to cases cited in Answer to Interrogatory 1 omitted.] These

Requests are irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of this case.

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 6 of 12
7

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

reasonable accommodation; (2) the discharge of employees because of their actual or perceived 

disabilities when SNI refused to allow them to return to work despite the employees having been 

released to work without restrictions; and (3) the failure to engage in the interactive process and 

provide reasonable accommodations for the known disabilities of employees by providing additional 

leave and instead discharging them for exceeding SNI’s maximum leave policy. (Doc. 1, Compl. at ¶ 

23). Setting aside any post-reasonable cause temporal limitations, Interrogatory No. 1 and Document 

Request No. 68 seek information well beyond any claims or defenses in this litigation by asking for 

information regarding current employees at SNI’s Livingston, California facility. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b). This information regarding SNI’s current employees is not relevant because this lawsuit 

concerns the allegedly unlawful discharge (termination) of employees. 

Moreover, even if the EEOC’s requests were limited to discharged employees, they are 

overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. Contrary to the EEOC’s argument, the 

discovery requests are not limited to seeking information about additional victims of the same kind of 

discrimination at issue in this case. (Doc. 44-1 at p. 14). Rather, as propounded, the discovery 

requests seek information regarding all employees separated from service, regardless of the reason, 

and all requested accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. As this action generally 

relates to allegations of disability discrimination and discharge following an employee’s use of leave, 

discovery should be limited to such employees. See Gen. Tel. Co. of the Nw., Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 

318, 331 (1980) (The EEOC is allowed to pursue any violations of Title VII that are ascertained “in 

the course of a reasonable investigation of the charging party’s complaint.”). 

With respect to temporal limits, the parties clash over whether the scope of the EEOC’s 

interrogatory and document request should be narrowed to exclude employee information for the postreasonable cause period.

3

 The EEOC, citing Ninth Circuit precedent from Arizona ex rel. Horne v. 

Geo Group, Inc., 816 F.3d 1189, 1205 (9th Cir. 2016), contends that such discovery is proper because 

the EEOC may seek relief in this class action on behalf of aggrieved individuals whose claims arose 

 

3

The discovery requests at issue seek information from January 1, 2013, to the present. The reasonable cause 

determination was issued on September 27, 2013. Accordingly, the post-reasonable cause period is the time period from 

September 27, 2013, to the present. 

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 7 of 12
8

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

after the reasonable cause determination so long as their claims are already encompassed in the 

reasonable cause determination or like or reasonably related to the initial charge. 

In Geo Group, the Ninth Circuit considered a challenge to a district court’s dismissal of the 

claims of 15 women who had not been specifically identified during the course of the investigation or 

in the reasonable cause determination. Id. at 1197. The district court found that the EEOC was 

required to identify these women and conciliate their claims prior to bringing suit on their behalf. Id.

at 1197. The district court was concerned that the EEOC had used the discovery process to identify 

additional aggrieved employees, and determined that the EEOC was required to identify and conciliate 

on behalf of all class members during the investigation period. The Ninth Circuit rejected the district 

court’s premise that the EEOC “must identify and conciliate on behalf of each individual aggrieved 

employee during the investigation process prior to filing a lawsuit seeking recovery on behalf of a 

class.” Id. at 1200. Instead, the Ninth Circuit held that the EEOC satisfied its pre-suit conciliation 

requirements to bring a class action if it attempts to conciliate on behalf of an identified class of 

individuals prior to bringing suit. Id. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that if the EEOC was required to 

pursue individual conciliation on behalf of every aggrieved employee, it would be effectively barred 

from seeking relief on behalf of any unnamed class members the EEOC had yet to identify when it 

filed suit. Id. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit believed it would be illogical to limit the EEOC’s ability 

to seek classwide relief to something narrower than the abilities of civil litigants in private class 

actions who may discover additional aggrieved employees who may wish to participate in the class. 

Id. The Ninth Circuit therefore vacated the district court’s per se exclusion of any discrimination and 

retaliation that occurred after the date of the reasonable cause determination and remanded the action 

for the district court to determine whether the aggrieved employees’ claims were already encompassed 

within the reasonable cause determination, or whether the claim was “like or reasonably related” to the 

initial charge. Id. at 1206. 

In contrast to the position of Geo Group, SNI believes that the EEOC’s interrogatory and 

document request geared at employee information for the two-plus year time period after the EEOC 

closed its investigation is an improper attempt to find unknown claims that would not have existed at 

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 8 of 12
9

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

the time the EEOC investigated or conciliated the charges in this action. SNI relies on CRST Van 

Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 136 S.Ct. 1642 (2016), to contend that such claims would be barred. 

Of significance, CRST was decided after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Geo Group, but did not 

directly confront the issue of whether the EEOC may bring claims on behalf of additional aggrieved 

employees identified during the discovery process. Rather, CRST involved the question of whether an 

employer was a prevailing party and entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, for prevailing in getting 

claimants dismissed because the Commission had not adequately investigated or attempted to 

conciliate the claims on their behalf before filing suit. In CRST, at the district court level, the EEOC 

identified over 250 allegedly aggrieved women during discovery. In several orders, including a 

sanctions order, the district court ruled that the EEOC’s claims on behalf of all but 67 women were 

barred on a variety of grounds. With regard to the remaining 67 women, the district court barred the 

EEOC from seeking relief for these women on the ground that the EEOC had not satisfied its § 706 

pre-suit requirements to investigate and conciliate before filing the lawsuit. CRST, 136 S.Ct. at 1648-

49. The district court then dismissed the suit, held that CRST was a prevailing party, and invited 

CRST to apply for attorney’s fees. CRST moved for attorneys’ fees, which the district court awarded 

after finding that the EEOC’s failure to satisfy its pre-suit obligations for its claims on behalf of the 

final 67 women was unreasonable. Id. at 1649. 

The EEOC appealed the district court’s order dismissing the claims on behalf of the 67 women 

that the district court rejected for failure to satisfy the pre-suit requirements. The Court of Appeals 

found that the district court’s dismissal of the 67 claims for lack of investigation and conciliation was 

proper. In so doing, the Court of Appeals determined that the EEOC “‘did not reasonably investigate 

the class allegations of sexual harassment during a reasonable investigation of the charge,’ but rather 

used ‘discovery in the resulting lawsuit as a fishing expedition to uncover more violations.’” Id. at 

1659 (quoting EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 679 F.3d 657, 676 (8th Cir. 2012)). Indeed, the 

EEOC did not investigate the specific allegations of any of the 67 allegedly aggrieved persons until 

after the complaint was filed. Id.

Additionally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all other claims, 

but reversed claims of behalf of two individuals for unrelated reasons. The Court of Appeals also 

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 9 of 12
10

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

vacated the attorney’s fees award and remanded the matter. Id. at 1649. After remand, the EEOC 

withdrew one of the remaining claims and settled the other claim. The district court again awarded 

CRST attorney’s fees, finding that CRST prevailed on the EEOC’s pattern-or-practice claim and on 

the claims on behalf of the over 150 allegedly aggrieved women, including the 67 claims dismissed 

because of the EEOC’s failure to satisfy its pre-suit requirements. The EEOC appealed, and the Court 

of Appeals again reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court’s 

conclusion that CRST could recover attorney’s fees for the pattern-or-practice claim. Id. at 1650. The 

Court of Appeals also held that because Title VII’s pre-suit requirements are not elements of a Title 

VII claim, the dismissal of the claims regarding the 67 women on the ground that the Commission 

failed to investigate or conciliate was not a ruling on the merits, and CRST did not prevail on those 

claims. Id. at 1651. 

By precluding CRST from recovering attorney’s fees for claims dismissed because the 

Commission failed to satisfy its pre-suit obligations, the Court of Appeals’ decision conflicted with the

decisions of three other Courts of Appeals. For that reason, the United States Supreme Court granted 

certiorari. Id. at 1651. 

Addressing the issue of attorney’s fees, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant need not 

obtain a favorable judgment on the merits in order to be a “prevailing party.” Id. at 1651. In reaching 

this holding, the Supreme Court did not question the lower court’s determination that the EEOC had 

not satisfied its statutory pre-suit requirements to investigate and conciliate the claims identified in 

discovery. Id. By leaving that determination undisturbed, the Supreme Court’s decision in CRST

lends support to SNI’s position in this action that the EEOC’s discovery should be limited, and the 

information sought by the EEOC for the post-reasonable cause period should not be deemed relevant 

to any party’s claim or defense because those claims would be barred. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

The EEOC contends that SNI’s position runs counter to the decision in Mach Mining because 

it impermissibly challenges the sufficiency of the EEOC’s pre-suit investigation and conciliation 

efforts. (Doc. 48 at p. 6). In Mach Mining, the Supreme Court clarified the narrow scope of judicial 

review of the EEOC’s conciliation activities, directing that a court may look “only to whether the 

EEOC attempted to confer about a charge, and not to what happened (i.e., statement made or positions 

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 10 of 12
11

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

taken) during those discussions.” Mach Mining, 135 S.Ct. at 1656. While Mach Mining provides for 

limited review, it does not preclude a court from considering whether the EEOC attempted to confer 

about a specific allegation in the first instance and thus met its conciliation requirements. Mach 

Mining, 135 S.Ct. at 1655-56. Here, the discovery sought by the EEOC concerns information 

regarding employees and reasonable accommodations well beyond the scope of its allegations related 

to the discrimination against and subsequent discharge of employees due to their actual or perceived 

disability and, more specifically, the provision of leave. In other words, the EEOC’s discovery 

requests seek information unrelated to the charges that would have been conciliated. 

Nonetheless, even if the Court were to accept the EEOC’s position regarding Geo Group, 

Interrogatory No. 1 and Document Request No. 68 seek information not already encompassed in the 

reasonable cause determination or like or reasonably related to the initial charge. Here, Ms. Rodriguez 

complained in her initial charge that she was discharged after using leave as a reasonable 

accommodation and after SNI refused to allow her to return to work despite having been released to 

work without restrictions. (Doc. 44-3; Charge of Discrimination, Ex. B to Pl’s Motion to Compel). 

Following its investigation, on September 27, 2013, the EEOC issued its reasonable cause 

determination, finding that Ms. Rodriguez “was denied a reasonable accommodation, subjected to 

different terms and conditions of employment and discharged because of her disability” and that 

“similarly situated employees were also denied a reasonable accommodation, subjected to different 

terms and conditions, and discharged due to their actual disability or perceived disability.” (Doc. 44-5; 

Determination, Ex. D to Pl’s Motion to Compel). The Court finds that the EEOC’s discovery requests 

ask for information regarding claims that are not encompassed in the reasonable cause determination 

or like or reasonably related to the initial charge because they seek information regarding employees 

who were not terminated or who were terminated for reasons unrelated to disability leave. 

Given the overbroad and disproportionate nature of the EEOC’s current requests, it is 

unnecessary to ascribe temporal limitations to those requests. However, the EEOC will not be 

precluded from propounding properly tailored discovery seeking information relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this action and proportional to the needs of this case. Therefore, the deadline for the 

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 11 of 12
12

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

EEOC to identify the potential claimants shall be extended, and, as appropriate and necessary, SNI 

may serve objections to these amended discovery requests, if any. 

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The EEOC’s motion to compel, filed on July 12, 2016, is DENIED; 

2. The EEOC’s request for an extension of the deadline to identify any potential claimants is 

GRANTED;

3. The deadline to identify all claimants in this action and notify Defendant in writing of said 

claimants is extended to November 30, 2016. The telephonic status conference scheduled 

for October 11, 2016, is continued to December 14, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8 

(BAM) before the undersigned. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01431-DAD-BAM Document 52 Filed 08/17/16 Page 12 of 12