Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05191/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05191-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teri L. Mitchell
Plaintiff
John E. Potter
Defendant
U.S. Postal Service
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

TERI L. MITCHELL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5191

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER,

GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 18th day of January, 2007, come on for

consideration the following motions:

* Defendant's Motion To Compel Discovery Pursuant To

Interrogatories Propounded To Plaintiff (document #44);

* Defendant's Motion To Compel Discovery Pertaining To

Deposition Of January 11, 2007 (document #46); 

* Defendant's Motion To Extend Time To Complete Discovery

(document #48);

* Defendant's Motion To Withdraw Motion To Compel

Discovery Pertaining To Deposition Of January 11, 2007

(document #54); and

* defendant's Motion For Leave To File Reply To Response

To Motion To Compel Discovery Pursuant To

Interrogatories (document #55),

and from said motions, and the responses thereto, the Court finds

and orders as follows:

1. In her pro se Complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was

subjected to discrimination in her employment by the U.S. Postal

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Service on the basis of a disability, sex, and race. The gravamen

of her allegations is that defendant refused to give her a light

duty assignment following breast cancer surgery. Plaintiff seeks

$300,000 in damages, plus reinstatement of sick leave and annual

leave from April 20, 2002, to May 23, 2002, as well as costs and

attorney's fees. 

2. The Court will grant Defendant's Motion To Withdraw

Motion To Compel Discovery Pertaining To Deposition Of January 11,

2007 (document #54) and defendant's Motion For Leave To File Reply

To Response To Motion To Compel Discovery Pursuant To

Interrogatories (document #55). The Reply attached to document

#55 will be deemed filed as of the date of this Order, and need

not be re-filed.

Left for disposition are the issues of whether plaintiff

should be compelled to answer certain Interrogatories, and whether

the time for discovery should be extended.

3. The discovery issues have been further narrowed by

defendant's Reply. It appears that the issue of whether plaintiff

must provide the following information is still in dispute:

* Interrogatory 5 asks plaintiff to "[i]dentify any person

with whom you have discussed the subject matter of this

case, setting forth what was said and by whom."

* Interrogatories 4, 6, 7, 8, and 18 ask for details about

who did what to whom, why it is said to be

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

discriminatory, and what documents prove it.

* Interrogatories 12, 13, and 14 ask plaintiff to explain

and document her damages calculation, and to show how

each element of that calculation is related to the

conduct of the defendant.

* Interrogatories 19 and 20 ask for details of all

medical, mental and/or emotional conditions plaintiff

has been treated for after age 18, and all medications

she has taken. Defendant wants a list of her medical

care providers and a medical release.

* Interrogatory 22 asks plaintiff what other conditions or

circumstances -- other than anything that may have

happened at work -- could have caused her mental

anguish.

* Interrogatory 23 asks for plaintiff's employment

history.

4. Discovery is governed by F.R.C.P. 26. Its scope is

broad:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of

any party, including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any books,

documents, or other tangible things and the identity and

location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable

matter. . . . Relevant information need not be

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.

F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1).

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

5. The information sought in Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

12, 13, 14, 18, 22 and 23 falls within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1),

and plaintiff will be directed to provide it. 

Plaintiff has indicated that she will provide this

information in the continuation of her deposition, which is

scheduled to resume on January 23, 2007, while defendant takes the

position that 

[a] witness during deposition may fail to completely

answer a question since they are not given the questions

prior to the deposition and have to answer the questions

without time to fully consider their answer. On the

other hand, a party has time to prepare an answer to an

interrogatory and is more likely to answer the

interrogatory completely and accurately.

The Court believes defendant's concern is not implicated here,

because plaintiff has been given the questions prior to her

deposition and will have time to fully consider their answers, and

directs that these matters are to be explored in the deposition.

Plaintiff is directed to fully respond to the areas of inquiry

included in Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 22 and

23 at that time. If, at the conclusion of the deposition,

defendant reasonably believes that plaintiff has not been fully

forthcoming with the information sought, he may move the Court for

further relief. 

Specifically with regard to Interrogatory 5, as to which

plaintiff asserts that the answer is "limitless," in that she has

talked about her case "to any and everyone who would stand still

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/18/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

including total strangers," the Court directs that she identify as

many of those people as she can recall, omitting strangers (who

would by definition be impossible to identify) and those to whom

she made nothing more than a passing comment, but including those

to whom she gave details about what she believed happened and why.

6. The information sought in Interrogatories 19 and 20 is

of a different nature. As to the medical records, there is no

federal physician/patient privilege, Miles v. Century 21 Real

Estate LLC, 2006 WL 2711534 (E.D. Ark. 2006), but the Court finds

that the Interrogatories are overly broad. The allegation is that

plaintiff was refused accommodation following breast cancer

surgery, and the Court believes that her medical and

pharmaceutical records with regard to that physical condition and

its treatment may well contain relevant information. There is no

showing as to why other medical records would be relevant,

however, nor does the Court immediately perceive that they would

be. Plaintiff is thus directed to provide the information

requested, to the extent it pertains to her breast cancer and

treatment therefore, and to execute a Medical Release limited to

those areas.

As for the records of mental health care providers, with the

exception of mental health care providers who will be called to

testify at trial, the Court finds them protected by the

psychotherapist/patient privilege recognized in Jaffee v. Redmond,

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/18/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

518 U.S. 1 (1996), and the motion will be denied to that extent.

7. The motion to extend discovery appears to the Court to

be primarily precautionary, in that defendant foresees the

possibility that he may want or need additional discovery upon

completion of plaintiff's deposition, or when plaintiff identifies

any additional expert witnesses as required by January 30, 2007.

The Court finds the motion premature, and declines at this time to

extend discovery (other than to acquiesce in the conclusion of

plaintiff's recessed deposition on January 23, which is four days

after discovery closes). If defendant belatedly identifies a

particular witness whose deposition is needed, a motion can be

made to take a deposition of that witness after the conclusion of

discovery.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's Motion For Leave To

File Reply To Response To Motion To Compel Discovery Pursuant To

Interrogatories (document #55) is granted, and the Reply attached

to said motion will be deemed filed as of the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Withdraw

Motion To Compel Discovery Pertaining To Deposition Of January 11,

2007 (document #54) is granted, and that Defendant's Motion To

Compel Discovery Pertaining To Deposition Of January 11, 2007

(document #46) is hereby withdrawn.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Compel

Discovery Pursuant To Interrogatories Propounded To Plaintiff

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/18/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
-7-

(document #44) is granted in part and denied in part. The motion

is granted, to the extent and with the specific limitations set

forth in detail in the body of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Extend Time

To Complete Discovery (document #48) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05191-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/18/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>