## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3183 F RANKB RUNKER, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. S C H W A N ’SH OM E S ERVI CE , I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:04 CV478

—Jam es T. Moo dy, Ju dge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2008

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 22, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, F LA UM, a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges. R O V NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . F r an kBr unk ers ue d S ch wa n’s H om e S ervice, Inc. , hi s for m erem plo yer, f ordi sabi l i ty disc ri m i nati on a nd f ai l ure to acco m m odate i n vi ol ati on o fthe Amer i c a ns wi th Di s ab i l i t i e s A c t( “ ADA” ) , 42 U. S
. C. §§ 1210 1 et seq
. On app eal he chal l enges the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s gra n t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t fo r Sc h w an ’s, in w hi ch the cour t dete rm i ned that Brunker w as not disab led . H e a lso ch alle n ge s e ar lier ru lin gs d e n yin g h is2 N o. 07

- 3183

m oti ons to com pel di scover y a nd i m posi ng sa ncti ons on hi m f orfi l i ng tho se m oti ons. W e r eve rs e the grant of sum m ar y j ud gm ent, r eve rs e th e d en i alo fa m oti on t o com pel, and vaca te the a w ar d ofsa ncti ons.

I. Schwan’s, a hom e- del i ver y f oo d s er vi ce, hi re d B ru n ker i n N ove m ber20 02 as a Route M anage r f ori ts Val parais o Dep ot. A s a Route M anage r, Brunkerso l d and del i ver ed fro ze n food an d ot h er c om p an y pr od u c ts to cu st om er s. In Fe b ru ar y 2 00 3, B ru n ke r st ar te d to ex p er i e n c e s h ak in g in hi s ha nds , s l ur r ed spe ec h, di zz i ne ss , l i g hthe ade dne ss , a nd headaches. Th es e s ym ptom s o ccurr ed once ortwice eve ryday in Febru ar y an d m ade i t di ffi cul t forhi m to w ri te , w al k, speak, and dri ve. The di zzi ness l ast ed up to f our hours each day. Brunker ’ s doct orper f or m ed an M R I an d to ld h im th at h e m igh t s u ffer from m u ltip le sc ler os is. B ru n ke r th en ga ve Sc h w a n ’ s a n ot e fro m h is doctorr equesting tha t he avo i d d ri vi ng unti l the cause of hi s di zzi ness w as diagnose d. Sc h w an ’ s r esponded by pla ci ng Brunkero n dis abi l i ty l eave . B run ker’s doc tor w rote an oth er note tw o m ont hs l ater, re lea sin g him to re tu rn to ligh t-d u ty w or k. H e w a s s t i ll re str i cted fro m dri vi ng, so S chw an’ s a ssi gned another empl o y ee t o dr i ve wi thhi m on hi s r o ut e. The f o l l o wi ng m o nth Br unk erre tu r ne d t o wor kwi th o uta ny r es tr i ct i o ns and drove hi s r oute on hi s own , co m ple ti ng i t j ust a s quick l y a s he had i n the past. W i thi n f our m onths of Brunker re sum i ng hi s d ri vi ng, Brunkerto l d C huck Ram ey,N o. 07

- 3183 3 hi s then-s up er vi sor, tha t h e w anted to go to the M ayo Cl i ni c f o r a ddi ti o na l t es ts a nd t r ea tment
. Around the sa m e ti m e, Ra m eywro te up Br unk erf o r f ai l i ngt o r un a re sc h ed u led rou te
. On S ept embe r 8 , the da y b efo r e B runke r l eft f o r the cl i ni c , R am ey w ro te up Brunkerag ai n, thi s t i m e for wr i t i n ga c h e c kw i th i n s u ffi c i e n tfu n d s t o a fe l l o w e mplo yee ; deposi ti ng a p os t-d ate d check fro m a custo m er earli er than i ns tru cted ; and f ailin g to ad he re to Schw an ’s dress co de. Ram ey al so i nsi ste d that Br u n ker ’ s r oute b oo ks needed to be in or der b ef or e he l eft. A t the cl i ni c, B ru n ke r w as d iag n os ed w ith m u ltip le sc ler os is, bu t h is doc to r note d that hi s di zzi ness epi sodes, pre vi ousl y a daily o ccurr ence, had dim in i shed i n fre quency. Brunker al so to l d the doctorthat hi s wri ting di ffi cul ty w as now j ust “var i abl e” and h is sp eech sl urr ed onl y when he w as fat igu ed

. Du ring the ti m e Brunke r w as aw ay at the M ayo Cl i ni c, Ram ey drove Brunker ’ s r oute. Ram ey cla i m ed that Brunker had not be en se rv icing hund re ds ofhi s custom er s a nd had f al si fi ed his d ai l y r eco rds. W hen Brunker re turned t w o w eek s l ate r, a fterbeing di agno sed with m ultiple sclerosis, Ram ey fi red h im , citi ng “un satisfactory perf or m ance” and “unabl e t o perf or m es senti alj ob functi ons” on the term i nati on fo rm . H e backdate d the t er m i natio n to Sep te m b er 9, th e d ay B ru n ke r leftfor th e c lin ic and bef or e hi s di agno si s o fm ult i ple scl er osi s. A s di s c o v e r y i n the di s t r i c tc o ur tp r o c e e de d, Brun k er sou gh t to com p el num erou s d iscovery reque sts: Schw an ’s fi nanci ali nfo rm ati on; i ts anti

- disc ri m i nati on t ra i ni ng;4 N o. 07

- 3183

T he m ag istrate jud g e acce p ted th is arg u m en t, b u t it i s 1 inco rrect. A n em p loy er ac cu sed of discr im ina tion can no t lim it disc overy si m ply by res tr ic ti ng d uring l it ig a tio n it s st ated re as ons f or anadve rs e action. Af t eral l , the t ru e re as on beh i nd the act ion i s the very heart ofthe cas e, and B runker prese nted ev id en ce tha t S ch w an ’ s m ay h av e asserted r easo ns for firing him o th e r th a n th e o n e it r e l i e d o n d u r i n g li t i g a t i o n . A n e m p l o y e r ’s s hi ft i ng e xpl ana t i ons are evi denc e thatit s st at ed re as ons d i d not t ru l y m ot i vat e the adve rs e ac t i on and thatani m per m i s s ibl e one a ct u a lly d id

. R u d in v . L in c o ln L a n d C m ty . C o ll. , 420 F. 3d 712, 726 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( “[ T] he f ac t fi nder ’ s di s bel i efofthe r ea s ons put f orw ard b y the defendan t ( parti cular ly i f d isbeli efi s accom pani ed by a s us pi c i on ofm en dac i t y) m ay, tog eth erwith the el em ents ofthe prim a f aci e c ase , s uffice t o show i ntent ional d isc ri m in a tio n .”) (c ita tio n o m itt ed ); A pp el bau m v. M i l w au kee M etro . S ew era g e D ist. , 34 0 F .3d 57 3 , 5 7 9 ( 7 t h C ir . 20 0 3 ) (sam e); K rc h n av y v. Li m agr ai n G ene t i cs C orp. , 29 4 F .3d 871 , 87 6-77 ( 7th (co n tin u ed ...) an d se ve r al per so nne l fi l es ( f o r r o ut e m an ag er s wi thl i g ht du ty w or k, f orr oute m anage rs wh o w er e di sci plin ed f or dress

- code o r ro ute-boo k v i ola tio ns, f orhi s l astand pri or su p ervisors, f or a t erm inated route m an ager (Ba rry Dw yer ) , and f ora disabl ed rou te m anage r ( M i ke D everea ux ))
. H e also requ ested th at his form er sup ervisor, Zol tan S zabo , wh o had accused Brunkero fdi shones ty, r e v e a l th e d i s h o n e s tc o n d u c tth a th a d l e d to h i s o wn te r m i na ti o n. S ch wan’ s o ppo se d m o sto fthi s di sc o ve r y a nd conte nd ed that because S chw an’ s would r ely onlyo n B ru n ke r’ s f ai l ure to ser vi ce c ustom er s a s the r eas on it fi re d him , o therdi sci pline thatBrunke r an d his co w or ker s r ecei ved w as i rr el evant
. I t a gr eed, however, to 1N o. 07

- 3183 5

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 C ir . 20 0 2 ) (sam e); O’Ne a l v. Ci ty o f Ne w Al ba ny, 293 F .3d 998, 1 0 0 6 (7 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ) (s a m e); Sta l t erv. Wal

-M ar tSt or es, Inc. , 195 F .3d 28 5 , 29 1 (7t h C ir . 19 9 9 ) (sam e). produce the per sonnelfi les o fthe ro ute m anage rs that R am ey su p er vis ed

. The m agi str ate j ud ge denie d Brun ker’ s m oti on t o co m pelo n the g r o unds o fi r r el ev an cy an d o ve rbr ea dth

. H e then sancti oned Brunker i n the am ount of $4, 423 f or m aking th ose requ e s ts. L ater, in resp ons e to Bru nk er’s m oti on f orr eco nsi d er ati on, the m agi str ate j ud ge or dered S ch wan’ s to pr o duce r ec o r ds i n the perso nne l fi l e o fo ne of B ru n ke r’ s f o r m er su p er vis or s w h o h ad p ar tic ip at ed in th e te r m i na ti o n, b utr efus ed to orde r pr o duct i o n o fa ny othe r re quested m ate ri al s. S ch wan’ s ne xt move d f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, an d Brunker re sponded thatS chw an ’s w as precl ud ed fro m m aking ar gum ents about f acts o n w h ich it had refused disc overy . S peci fi cal l y, he a rgued that S chw an’ s had re fused to pro du ce per sonnelfi l es re l ating to em plo yee disc i pline, but then S chw an’ s di scusse d al l the disci plinaryact i on a gainst Brunker ( beyo nd hi s a l l ege d f ai l ur e to s er vi ce c us to m er s)
. S ch wan’ s a lso r el i ed o n the perso nnel file s ofDw yerand Dever eaux afterr efusi ng to p rod uc e thos e fi les. Bru nk er m oved f or the d is trict court to str i ke thos e a rgum ents

— as t h e m agi str ate j ud ge sugge st ed h e d o if Sc h w an ’s us ed th e s e m at er ials

— an d pr es en te d whatev i den ce was a va i l ab l e to hi m t o a r g ue that Schwan’s had not di sci plined other em plo yee s for6 N o. 07

- 3183 si m i l arm i sco nd uct. But th e c ou rtdeni ed the m oti on t o st r i k e a s mo o t, r e a s o n i n g th a t a j u r y c o u l d n o tf i nd Brunker disabl ed beca use he w as not substa nti al ly li m ited in a m aj or l ife activity but rather w a s only “i nt erm i tte ntl y or tem pora ri l y i m pai re d.” I t ther ef ore granted Schwan’s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent.

II. A. S umma ryJ udg me nt Brunker conte nd s that he prese nted su ffi ci ent e vi dence to dem onst ra te that he i s s ubstanti ally lim i ted i n a m aj or l i fe a c t i v i ty
. We r e v i e w deno vo a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s g r an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t, vi ewi ngthe e vi den ce i n the ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o th e n on m ov in g p ar ty
. Healy v. C ity o f Chi cago , 4 50 F. 3d 732, 73 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. To s urvi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent on hi s r eas onabl e- acco m m odati on cl ai m , Brunkerm ust o fferev i denc e that he i s a qual i fi ed i nd i vi du alwith a di sabi l ity ; t hat S chw an’ s was aware of h is d isa b ility ; a n d th at Sc h w an ’s fa iled to rea so n ab ly ac c om m od at e t h e d isa b ility

. Se eM ob l ey v. Al l s t at eIns . Co. , 531 F. 3d 539, 54 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Fo r hi s di spara te- tr eat
m ent c l ai m , he m ust o ffere vidence that he suffer ed an advers e e m plo ym ent a cti on; and that hi s di sabi lity was a d et er m in in g fa c to r b eh in d th e a d ve rs e a c tio n . Ger m ano v. Int’ l ProfitAss’ n, Inc. , 544 F.3d 7 9 8 , 8 0 6 (7th C ir. 2008 ) . T h u s, both cl ai m s r equi re thatBrunkerbe “dis

abl ed. ” W e be gi n ourr evi ew byexam i ni ng wh etherBru nker ha s pr o vi ded su ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o c r ea te a n g en ui ne i s s ue o n whe the r h e i s di s ab l e d. B runk e r i s “ di s ab l e d”N o. 07

- 3183 7

u n d er th e A D A if h e h as an im p air m en t th at su b st an tia lly l i m i ts a maj o r l i fe ac ti vi ty or i fhe i s “r eg ar ded as ” su ch

. See 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1210 2; Bode ns t ab v. County of Cook, 56 9 F. 3d 651, 65 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. A n im pai rm ent i s a d i s ab i l i t y o n l y w h e n i t s i mp a c ti s p e r ma n e n to r l o n gt e r m, 29 C .F.R . § 16 30 .2(j)(2)(iii); Kam pm i e rv. Em e r i t us Corp. , 47 2 F. 3d 930, 93 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 7). Ex am ple s o f“inter m i tte nt” i m pai rm ents, wh i ch ar e no t di sabi l i ti es , incl ud e a br oke n l eg, a ppen di ci ti s, o r i so l at ed bo ut s o fde pr es sio n. O gb o rn v. U ni t e d F ood & C o m m er ci al W orke rs U ni on , Loc al No. 88 1 , 30 5 F .3d 76 3, 76 7 (7 th C ir. 20 0 2) (c olle c tin g c as es ). A lthough Brunke r suffer s fro m m ult i ple scl er osi s, that f act a l o n e d o e s n o tp r o v e th a th e i s d i s ab l e d u n d er the AD A. R ath er, w e m us t con side r the sp ecifi c fac t s o f B run ker’s c as e. See B urn ett v. LFW Inc. , 472 F.3d 471, 483 (7th Cir. 20 06 ). Even w hen vi ew ed in the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o Br unk er, hi s i m pai r m en ts a r e no t su ffi ci en t to s ho w tha t he i s di sabl ed. In M ay 20 03 h is physi ci an al l owed hi m to r e t u r n t o wo r k wi th o u t a n y r e s t r i c t i o n a t a l l

. O n c e he r e t u r n e d , h e dr o v e th e s a me r o u t e b y h i ms e l fa n d c o mpl et ed i tj u s ta s qu i c k l y a s h e h a d i n th e p a s t
. In a d d i t i o n, du ring Bru n ker ’ s s tayatthe M ayo Cl i ni c, the doctor n ot ed th at h is d izz in es s e p is o d es , pr ev iou sly a d aily occur re nce, were occ u rr i ng l ess fre quentl y. Brunker als o to ld th e d oc to r th at h is w rit in g d ifficu l t y w a s “v ar iab le” an d h is s p ee c h slu rre d “a t t im es w h en h e is tire d. ” Acco r di ng l y, we ag r ee wi ththe di st r i ctc o urt’s c on c lu sio n th at th e e vid e n c e in th is re c or d sh ow s o n ly “i nter m i tte nt” d i ffi cul ti es ra therthan a subst anti all i m i tati on o n a m aj orl i fe a cti vi ty.8 N o. 07

- 3183 Bu t Brunke r’ s e vi dence w as su ffi ci ent t o show that Schwan’s rega rded Brunkeras di sabl ed. U nd er a “ re gar ded as” theo ry, the p laintiffm ust dem onst ra te ei therthat ( 1) the em plo yerm i sta kenl y b el i eve s th at the e m plo yee ha s an im p airm en t tha t sub stan tially l im its a m aj or l ife acti vity , or ( 2) the em plo yerm i sta kenl y b el i eve s that a n exi sting i m pai rm ent, w h ich i s no t a ctual l y l i m i ti ng, does su b st an tia lly lim it a m ajor life ac tiv ity
. Nes e v. Juli an N ordic Cons t r . Co. , 405 F.3d 638 , 641 (7th C ir. 2005). M aj or l ife acti vi ti es cove re d by th e A D A i ncl ud e “ functi ons such as car i ng f or[on e’s sel f ] , per f or m i ng m anual ta sks , walk

i ng, seeing, he ar i ng, s pea k i ng, b r ea th i ng, l ea r ni ng, a nd w orking.” 29 C.F .R . § 1630.2(i ); E. E.O. C. v. Le e ’s Log C abin, Inc. , 546 F.3d 43 8, 44 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). The re cor d contains adequate evi dence to supp ort a theo ry that Schwan’s re gar ded Brunker as being d i sabl ed in the m aj or l ife activities ofw alki ng, ca r in g f or him self, an d s pea k i ng . F or exam pl e, the da y b efo r e he l eft f o r the M ayo Cl i ni c, S chw an’ s i ssued Brunkerm ult i ple “co rr ecti ve a ct i on repo r ts , ” i nc l udi nga dr es s- co de vi o l at i o n, sugge sting tha t S chw an’ s di d not be l i eve thatBrunker was abl e to c ar e f o r hi m se l fb ec au se of h is a ppar en t condi tio n. Fur ther m or e, S chw an’ s di sci plined him ev en though o therem plo yee s were not ci ted fo r si m i l arvi ol ations. A s for Sch w an ’s m otive for firi ng Bru nk er, Schw an ’s fi re d Brunker i m m edi ate l y a fterhe r etur ned fr om tr eat
m ent, but Schwan’s back dated the ter m i nati on not i ce t o befo rehe l eft f o r the cl i ni c, e vi den tly ho pi ngt o a vo i d the i m press i on that hi s a pp ar ent c ondit ion i nfl uenced Sch w an ’s dec isi on to term inate h im
. Th ese facts areN o. 07

- 3183 9 suffi ci ent t o cre ate a tr iab le ques ti on a s t o w hether S c h wa n ’ s r e g a r d e d B r u n k e r a s d i s ab l e d w h e n i tfi r e d h i m. B ecau se w e find a genu ine issue as to w he th er Schw an ’s reg ar ded Br unk era s di sabl ed, we m us t r emand th e disabi l i ty- disc ri m i nati on cl ai m f orfurthe r proce edi ngs. B u tw e s e e n o t r i ab l e c a s e th a tS c h w a n ’ s f a i l e d t o a c c o mm od at e h is im p air m en t. See M o bley, 53 1 F. 3d at 545. B r u n k e r a s s e r t s th a tS c h wa n ’ s c o u l d h a v e g i v e n h i m a l i g ht

- du t y p o s i t i o n r a the r tha n whati ta c t ua l l y p r o v i de d: shor t- ter m disabi l i ty l eave and, l ate r on, a secon d d riv er to hel p w i th hi s ro u te s. Bu t S chw an’ s was notr equi re d to provi de B ru nker ’ s “ i deal ” a ccom m odati on, o nl y that w h ich is re as on ab le. Se e M ays v. Pr i nc ipi, 30 1 F
. 3d 866, 87 2 ( 7th C ir. 20 02)
. Brunkerneve r re quested a l i ght- du ty po si ti o n a fte r hi s do ct o r r el ea se d hi m t o wor kwithout an y restrictions. E ven i f he m ad e the requ est, Schw an ’s provi ded opti ons that effecti vel y acco m m odated his lim ita tio n s. See M o bley, 5 31 F.3d at 546-47. Th e d istri ct cou rt d i d n o t a d d r e s s th e a c c o mmo d a t i o n qu e s t i o n, b u twe m ay rea c h it “s o lon g a s t h at gro u n d w as ad eq u at ely add re sse d i n the dist ri ct c ou rtand the nonm oving par ty h ad an op p or tu n ity to c on te st th e is su e.” C a rdo so v . Ro bert Bosc h Corp. , 427 F.3d 429 , 432 (7th Cir. 2005 ). W e the refore up hol d the co urt’ s g ra nt o f s u m m ar y j ud gm ent o n B r u n k e r ’ s r e a s o n ab l e - a c c o mmo d a t i o n c l a i m.

B. D iscovery R eq u ests B run ke r first argues th at he w as en titl ed to Schw an ’s fi nanci al re cor ds and the fi l es ofem plo yee s who re quested l i ght- du ty w or k, because thos e r eco rds m ay have re futed10 N o. 07

- 3183 any c l ai m byS chw an’ s that a n acco m m odati on would be a n un du e h a r ds hi p. See 42 U
. S. C. § 1 2111 ( 10)
. A lth ough th i s i nf o r m at i on w as o nc e r el ev an t, i t no l o ng erha s an y b ea rin g on th e ca se . U n d u e ha rd sh ip is relev an t o n ly to th e re as on ab le-a c c om m o d at ion cla im , see 4 2 U. S
. C. § 12 11 1( 10 )
. As we a ffi r m the gr an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t on that cl ai m , Brunkerwas not prej ud iced bythe denia l of th is in for m at ion
. B ru n ke r n ex t a s s e r ts th at th e m ag ist ra te j u d ge err ed in d en ying his m otio n to com p el his form er sup ervisor, Zol tan S zabo , wh o had accused Brunkero fdi shones ty, to exp lai n w h at d ishon est con d uc t resu lted in Szab o’s o wn di sc ha r g e fr o m S ch wan’ s. Br unk erc o nt en ds th atthe in f or m ati on i s a speci fi c i nstance o fS zabo ’ s char acte r for tru th fu ln es s. F ED . R. E V ID . 60 8( b)

. W e a gr ee. U nd er fede ral law , “sp ecifi c ins t a n c e s of th e con d uc t of a w i tness , . . . i n the di s c r e t i o n o fthe c o ur t, i fp r o b a t i v e o f tr uthful ness oruntruthful ness, can be inquir ed i nto on cro ss- exam i nati on” concerni ng the witnes s’ s “ chara cter f ortruthfulne ss oruntruthfulne ss. ” F ED . R. E V ID . 608(b); P rice v. Thu rm er, 514 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ). E ven i f, as Sc h w an ’s a rg u es , Sza b o d id n otp ar tic ip at e in Brunker’ s t er m i nati on, he was a potenti alwitnes s for Schwan’s, and Brunkerwas e n titl ed to the i nfo rm ati on to prepar e forposs ibl e cr oss - exam i nati on. A cco rd i ngl y, w e reverse th e d en ial of his m otion to com p el S zab o’s an sw er . See, e . g., Yo ung v. Jam es Gree n Mgm t, Inc. , 32 7 F.3d 616 , 626-27 (7th C ir. 2003). B ru n ke r a l s o a ss er ts th at th e m ag ist ra te j u d ge err ed in den y i nghi s m o ti o n t o c o m pel the pr o duct i o n o ftheN o. 07

- 3183 11 perso nnel fi l es of supervi sor s not i nvol ved i n hi s t er m i nati on a nd o finfo r mati o n ab o utS chwan’s anti

- disc ri m i nati on tr ain in g. H e a r g u e s th at th is in for m at ion m ay rev ea l a possibl e patt er n ofdi scr i m i nati on a nd a basi s for pu ni ti ve dam age s. M agi str ate j ud ges and di str i ct cour ts have bro ad dis cre ti on to li m i t a r equest f orthe disc ove ryo fper sonnelfi l es, i n or der t o preve nt the di sse m i nati on o f p er sonal o r c on fid en tia l in for m at ion ab ou t e m p loy ee s. Balde rs t on v. Fai r b anks M ors eEngi neD i v. of Col t e c Indu s. , 328 F. 3d 309, 320 ( 7th Cir
. 2003 )
. The cour t shoul d c onsi der “the tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces, weighi ng the value o fthe m ateri al so ug hta gains t th e bur deno fpr o vi di ngi t, ” an d t ak i ng i nt o a ccou nt s o ci ety ’ s i nt er es t i n fur th er i ng“ th e truthsee ki ngfun c t i o n” i n the p a r t i c ul a r c a s e b e f o r e the c o ur t. Patt e rs on v. Ave ry D e nnis on Corp
. , 281 F.3d 676, 68 1 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d)

. H er e , the ma g i s t r a t e j ud g e p r o per l y f o und i r r el ev an t th e di sc o ve r y r eque st s r eg ar di ng disc ri m i nati on fro m superv i sor s who w er e no t invol ved w ith B ru n ke r’s te rm in at ion
. Se eLi t t l ev. Il l
. D ep’ tof Rev e nue, 36 9 F
. 3d 1007, 10 12 (7th Cir

. 20 04) ( hol ding that ev i den ce o fdi sc i pl i ne b y a s upe r vi so r noti nv o l ve d i n the adv er se em pl o y m en t dec i si o n “ sh eds no l i g ht ” o n pl ainti ff’ s di scr i m i nati on cl ai m )
. The i nfo rm ati on Brunker r equ e s t e d ab o u tth e c o mpa n y ’ s a n t i

- d i s c r i mi n a t i o n t r a i ni ng, however, wa s re l evantto the questi on o fpuniti ve d am ag es . Se e Lampley v. O nyx Acc eptan ce C orp. , 340 F. 3d 47 8, 4 8 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 )
. T h u s , d i s c o v e r y o n th a tp o i nt sh ou ld h av e b ee n allow ed on th is iss u e. B ru n ke r als o c on te st s t h e m ag ist ra te j u d ge ’s d en ial of h is m oti on t o com pel the producti on o ft h e perso nnel fi l es of12 N o. 07

- 3183

ro ute m anage rs o ver see n by o th ersuperv i sor s. H e ci tes H u m p h ries v. CB O C S Wes t, Inc. , 4 74 F
. 3 d 3 8 7, 4 0 4

- 0 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 07 ), aff’d, 12 8 S
. Ct. 19 51 ( 2008 ) , f orthe pr op os itio n th at th e m ag ist ra te ju d ge co u ld h av e m or e fle x ibly appl i e d the c r i t e r i a tha tde fi ne s wh i c h o the r e mpl o y e es ar e s i m ilar ly si tuate d. Bu t we se e no abuse i n the m agi str at e jud ge ’s e x am in at ion of th e fa c to rs for s i m ilar ly s i t u a t e d e mp l o y e e s : f a c t o r s s u c h a s w h e th e r th e e mpl o y ee s ha d the s am e s upe r vi so r, wer e su bj ec t to the sam e s tandards, had the sam e j ob descri pti on, o r had com parabl e e xperi ence, educati on, and other quali fi cati ons . See War r e n v . So l o Cup Co. , 51 6 F
. 3d 627, 63 0- 31 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Ev eni n H um ph ries , the “ s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d” em p loyees had the sam e d ut ies and th e sa m e sup ervisor. 47 4 F .3d at40 6. T h e m ag ist ra te j u d ge ap p ro p ria te ly consi dered the se est abl i shed f acto rs .
C. S a nc t i o ns Br unk er a l so c o nt es ts the s an ct i o n o ffee s th atthe m agi str ate j ud ge aw ar ded to S c h w an ’ s be cause of Brunker’ s m oti ons to com pel

. W e v acat e a m agi str ate j u d ge ’s c h oic e o f sa n c tio n s o n ly w h en n o re as on ab le p er son w oul d agr ee that the s ancti ons w er e a pp ro pri ate , see M a yn a rd v . Nyg ren , 3 7 2 F
. 3 d 8 9 0 , 8 9 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )
. We m ust vacat e them i n thi s i nstance because th e m ag i str ate j u dge unre aso nabl y i m posed them i n re sponse to Brunker’ s di sco ver y r equests
. Fi rs t, we have a l re ady r ule d th atthe magi st r at e j udg e i m pr o per l y de ni ed p art o fthe requ ested discov ery (regard ing Szabo’s d ishon esty). S ec o nd, a fte r Br unk era sked fo r r ec o ns i der at i o n, theN o. 07

- 3183 13

m ag i st r at e j udg e hi m se l fal l o wed di sc o ve r y ofthe pe r so nnelfi l e of th e fo rm ersuperv i sorinvol ved i n the ter m i nati o n. Thu s, tho se r eque st s wer e no t unj us ti fi ed, a nd sa n c tio n s w ou ld be ina p p ro p ria te
. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 37( a) ( 5) ( B). In additi on, Brunker ’ s r equest f orinfo rm ati on o n w hetherS chw an’ s di sci plined otherem p loy ees w ho f ai l ed to f ol l ow it s dre ss code or t o kee p accura te rout e books w a s justifi ed becau se, d esp ite Schw an ’s p ro m ise th at i n i t s m ot ion for s u m m ar y jud gm en t it w ou l d n o tr e l y o n Br un k e r ’ s di s c i pl i ne f o r the s e o ffe ns es, i t di d s o a ny wa y. S ch wan’ s r es po nds tha t i t us ed th e i nfo rm ati on in i ts sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on o nl y t o prove tha tBrun k e r wa s n o tp e r f o r mi ngh i s j o b s a t i s f a cto
rily. See Squib b v. M em ’l M ed. Ctr, 4 97 F.3d 77 5, 788 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 7 )
. Bu ttha te xp l a na t i o n c o nc e de s tha tthe i nfo r matio n w as rele v a n t to B ru n ke r’s d isp ar at e-t re at m en t c laim bec au se it r elates to t he ev en -han d ed ne ss of the com p an y’s ex p ec ta tio n s. I nd eed, S chw an’ s went furtherthan m er el y r ai si ng an iss u e t h at it h ad p re vio u sly arg u ed w as irre lev an t. It f a ul t e d B r un k e r f o r f a i l i ngt o i de nt i fy a nyr o ut e ma na ger w ho had “s i m i l arper f or m ance i ss u es” and w as tr eat ed m or e f avo rabl y. A nd S chw an’ s a l so disc ussed the ro ute m an ag er( Bar r y Dwye r ) who was termi na te d f o r f ai l i ng to se rv ice c u st om er s, d es p ite Sc h w an ’s s u c c es sfu l op p os iti on t o Brunker’ s r equest f orhi s per sonnelfi l e. S i m i l ar ly, Schwan’s denie d the r el evancyo fthe perso nnel fi l e o f anothe r f or m erem plo yee , M i ke Devere aux, but then used parts o fthatfi l e in the sum m ar y j ud gm ent r epl y. Through i ts acti ons, S chw an’ s c on c ed es that the b ulko f Brunker’ s r equests were substa ntially j usti fi ed. W e there

f or e v acat e the award ofsa ncti ons.14 N o. 07

- 3183 III. A ccor ding ly, w e A FFIRM in p ar t, V ACATE a nd R EV ERSE i n pa r t, an d R EMA ND for p ro c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is op inion. B run ker shou ld be a ll ow ed ad d iti ona l d iscovery as w e hav e o utl i ned abov e. Ci rcui t Rul e 36 shal l applyo n r e man d.

10- 22- 09