1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

:

Kelley Craig-Wood, :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Case No. 2:10-cv-906

:

Time Warner NY Cable LLC, : JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

Defendant. : Magistrate Judge Kemp

:

ORDER

This employment discrimination case is before the Court to

consider the motion to compel filed by plaintiff Kelley CraigWood. Defendant Time Warner NY Cable LLC (“Time Warner”) has

opposed the motion. For the following reasons, the motion (#35)

will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

The allegations as laid out in this order are taken from Ms.

Craig-Wood’s amended complaint and Time Warner’s answer to that

amended complaint and are considered true for purposes of this

motion only. Ms. Craig-Wood, a Caucasian who is 45 years of age,

filed her amended complaint on February 2, 2011, alleging claims

for race and age discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 

Ohio law, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). 

She alleges that during her employment with Time Warner, her

African-American supervisor who was under age 40, Bianca Beckley,

treated her less favorably than her coworkers who were either

African American or under age 40. Specifically, she alleges that

Ms. Beckley engaged in fraudulent sales practices in order to

increase sales for Time Warner and directed her subordinates to

do the same. Ms. Craig-Wood refused to follow Ms. Beckley’s

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

directions, but her coworkers Tenesia Tyus, an African American

under age 40, and Carmella Weiser, under age 40, did follow these

directions and engaged in fraudulent activity. Ms. Craig-Wood

alleges that she was “harassed, disciplined, and threatened with

termination” while these two coworkers suffered no adverse

action. (Doc. #3, ¶7). 

On October 2, 2008, Ms. Beckley issued Ms. Craig-Wood a

written warning and placed her on six months probation. Time

Warner asserts in its answer that this probation was because Ms.

Craig-Wood was falsifying sales order forms. Ms. Craig-Wood

complained to human resources and nothing was done. On March 18,

2009, Ms. Beckley issued Ms. Craig-Wood a final written warning

for the same rule violation as her October 2, 2008 discipline. 

Time Warner asserts in its answer that this final warning was

issued because Ms. Craig-Wood was falsifying sale order forms. 

Ms. Beckley also docked Ms. Craig-Wood’s pay and vacation time. 

Ms. Craig-Wood was terminated on March 4, 2010. 

According to Ms. Craig-Wood’s motion to compel, on December

27, 2011 Ms. Craig-Wood served Time Warner with its first set of

discovery requests. On January 20, 2012 Time Warner responded

with some discovery, but insisted on a protective order before

producing the remaining responsive documents. Ms. Craig-Wood

agreed to the protective order sometime around March 14, 2012. 

On March 19, 2012, Ms. Craig-Wood received a disc with additional

discovery responses from Time Warner. 

Ms. Craig-Wood complains that Time Warner did not provide

any information in its discovery responses regarding her

“comparable coworkers.” (Doc. #35, p. 3). She also complains

that certain information is missing from Ms. Beckley’s personnel

file. (Doc. #35, p. 7). Time Warner opposes Ms. Craig-Wood’s

motion on the grounds that her requests are overly broad and not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

evidence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).

II. Standard of Review

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, a party may file a motion to compel

discovery if the opposing party fails to respond to discovery

requests including requests for production of documents.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1), (a)(3)(B)(iv).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize extremely

broad discovery. United States v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 542

F.2d 655, 657 (6th Cir. 1976). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 is liberally

construed in favor of allowing discovery. Dunn v. Midwestern

Indemnity, 88 F.R.D. 191, 195 (S.D. Ohio 1980). Any matter that

is relevant, in the sense that it reasonably may lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence, and is not privileged, can be

discovered. The concept of relevance during discovery is

necessarily broader than at trial, Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett,

Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 500-501 (6th Cir. 1970), and “[a] court is

not permitted to preclude the discovery of arguably relevant

information solely because if the information were introduced at

trial, it would be ‘speculative’ at best.” Coleman v. American

Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1097 (6th Cir. 1994). A district court

enjoys broad discretion in managing discovery. Lavado v.

Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993).

Information subject to disclosure during discovery need not

relate directly to the merits of the claims or defenses of the

parties. Rather, it may also relate to any of the myriad of

fact-oriented issues that arise in connection with the

litigation. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

(1978). On the other hand, the Court has the duty to deny

discovery directed to matters not legitimately within the scope

of Rule 26, and to use its broad discretionary power to protect a

party or person from harassment or oppression that may result

even from a facially appropriate discovery request. See Herbert

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979). Additionally, the Court has

discretion to limit or even preclude discovery which meets the

general standard of relevance found in Rule 26(b)(1) if the

discovery is unreasonably duplicative, or the burden of providing

discovery outweighs the benefits, taking into account factors

such as the importance of the requested discovery to the central

issues in the case, the amount in controversy, and the parties'

resources. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). 

Finally, the Court notes that the scope of permissible

discovery which can be conducted without leave of court has been

narrowed somewhat by the December 1, 2000 amendments to the

Federal Rules. Rule 26(b) now permits discovery to be had

without leave of court if that discovery is “relevant to any

party’s claim or defense. . .” Upon a showing of good cause,

however, the court may permit broader discovery of matters

“relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id.

It is with these standards in mind that the Court will

decide the current motion. 

III. Discussion

In an employment discrimination case such as this one, the

outcome might turn on whether the plaintiff can identify one or

more comparable employees who are similarly situated but received

different treatment. See Bobo v. UPS, 665 F.3d 741, 753 (6th

Cir. 2012). These comparable employees must be similarly

situated in all relevant respects. Id. at 751. “The refusal of

a defendant to disclose requested comparator information denies

plaintiff the opportunity to determine whether the evidence

actually reveals comparator status and different treatment,

critical elements of the claim that the trier of fact must

determine.” Id. at 753. Ms. Craig-Wood’s motion to compel

argues Time Warner has not provided relevant information in

response to her requests for production of documents regarding

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

“comparable coworkers.” This Court will now consider each of

these requests.

A. Personnel Files, Job Descriptions, Job and Area Assignments,

and Commissions

Document request nos. 6-9 and 11-26 ask for a copy of the

personnel file, the job descriptions for all positions worked,

the “job assignments” and “area” assignments, and the commissions

paid to either Ms. Beckley, Tenesia Tyus, Carmela Weiser,

Princess Powe, and Ty Harris. Mr. Harris was Ms. Beckley’s

supervisor. Ms. Craig-Wood has made no allegations against Mr.

Harris and he is not mentioned in Ms. Craig-Wood’s complaint. 

There is no reason to believe that any documents related to Mr.

Harris are relevant to Ms. Craig-Wood’s claims and therefore this

Court will not order production of documents related to Mr.

Harris at this time. This Court will consider the remaining

requests in turn. 

i. Personnel Files

Personnel files often contain highly personal and

confidential information, such as unlisted addresses, telephone

numbers, marital status, wage information, medical background,

credit history, and other work-related problems unrelated to a

plaintiff’s case. Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359, 365 (6th Cir.

1999). “Because of the extremely private nature of personnel

files, courts generally do not order production of such files

except upon a compelling showing of relevance by the requesting

party.” Stratienko v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp. Auth.,

No. 1:07–CV–258, 2008 WL 4442492, *5 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 25, 2008).

See also Jordan v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-0051,

2010 WL 3024868 (M.D. Tenn. July 28, 2010). While this Court

will not order Time Warner to produce all the personnel files in

their entirety, it will order it to produce additional relevant

documents as detailed below. 

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6

Time Warner represents that it has provided Ms. Beckley’s

complete personnel file to Ms. Craig-Wood. In response, Ms.

Craig-Wood argues that “Beckley’s file should contain” additional

documents (Doc. #35, p.7), but Time Warner asserts there are

none. To resolve this disagreement, Time Warner will be ordered

to re-check its records to assure Ms. Craig-Wood that it has

provided the entire personnel file to her. It will also be

ordered to provide an explanation to Ms. Craig-Wood as to why the

documents she believes are missing are not contained in this

personnel file. 

Time Warner asserts that it reviewed the personnel files of 

Ms. Tyus, Ms. Weiser, and Ms. Powe to determine whether any

disciplinary records exist. It has advised Ms. Craig-Wood that

these three individual’s personnel files do not contain

discipline from Ms. Beckley. Thus, Time Warner argues there is

nothing else relevant in the files to produce. 

Although Time Warner correctly concludes that discipline

from Ms. Beckley against these individuals would be relevant,

that is not the only relevant piece of information potentially

contained in these personnel files. Ms. Craig-Wood has alleged

not only that Ms. Beckley discriminated against her, but also

that Ms. Craig-Wood’s complaint to human resources was ignored. 

She also alleges that Ms. Beckley issued Ms. Craig-Wood a final

written warning “in retaliation” for her having made the

complaint to human resources. (Doc. #3, ¶ 8). Thus, if the

personnel files of these coworkers contain some evidence that

these coworkers ever complained to human resources but were not

disciplined for doing so, or that their complaints to human

resources were properly investigated, such documents would be

relevant to Ms. Craig-Wood’s allegations and must be produced.

In addition, Time Warner has asserted in its answer that Ms.

Craig-Wood was disciplined and given a final written warning

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7

because she was falsifying sales order forms. (Doc. #7, ¶8). If

Ms. Craig-Wood can show that her coworkers were engaged in

similar activity, but were not disciplined for it, it may support

her claim that the real reason for Ms. Craig-Wood’s discipline

was discrimination or retaliation. Thus, if there is any

information in these personnel files indicating that these

coworkers falsified documents or were otherwise engaged in

fraudulent activity, that information must also be produced to

Ms. Craig-Wood.

Therefore, Time Warner is ordered to produce any documents

in the personnel files of Ms. Tyus, Ms. Weiser, or Ms. Powe that

demonstrate any complaints these individuals made to human

resources, any discipline they received thereafter, and any

investigation human resources conducted in response to their

complaints. Time Warner must also produce any documents which

might show that these coworkers were engaged in fraudulent

activities and whether or not they were disciplined for those

activities. 

ii. Job Descriptions for All Positions Worked

Ms. Craig-Wood has asked for the job descriptions for all

positions worked by Ms. Beckley and the above named coworkers.

Time Warner asserts that it has produced the job description for

Ms. Craig-Wood and that the other three coworkers held that same

position as Ms. Craig-Wood at the time of her allegations, so

that job description applies equally to them. As to any other

positions that these individuals have held, Time Warner argues

these job descriptions are not relevant to Ms. Craig-Wood’s

claims. This Court agrees with Time Warner. Any job descriptions

for positions that these individuals held before or after the

time they held the same position as Ms. Craig-Wood have no

bearing on Ms. Craig-Wood’s claims that Ms. Beckley and the human

resource department discriminated or retaliated against her

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
8

because of her race and age. 

iii. Job Assignments and Area Assignments

Ms. Craig-Wood has asked for documents regarding “job

assignments” and “area” assignments for Ms. Beckley and the above

named coworkers. Without additional facts, it is difficult to

know what is meant by the terms “job assignments” and “area”

assignments. Ms. Craig-Wood asserts in her motion that this

information will show the “significant difference in the

production of coworkers assigned to profitable areas as well as

Plaintiff being assigned to unprofitable areas. Documents and

statistics will show that the number of sales both by time and

distance and services sold by Plaintiff’s coworkers was

fraudulent.” (Doc. #35, p.7).

Ms. Craig-Wood, however, has not asserted a claim that she

was discriminated or retaliated against by being placed in an

unprofitable area, so these documents are not relevant for this

purpose. If there are documents that indicate that services sold

by Ms. Craig-Wood’s coworkers were fraudulent, however, then

those documents would be relevant to Ms. Craig-Wood’s claims

because they might demonstrate that she was disciplined or

terminated for falsifying documents when others were not. 

Time Warner has interpreted the terms “job assignments” and

“area” assignments to mean that Ms. Craig-Wood is requesting

customer addresses to which each coworker was assigned. Time

Warner maintains that it does not have any record of the specific

addresses assigned to these three individuals during that period

because they no longer exist. The only potential documents Time

Warner has that might be responsive are document reflecting the

number of addresses assigned to a particular coworker. To the

extent these records are available, Time Warner is ordered to

produce them. 

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
9

iv. Commissions

Ms. Craig-Wood asks for copies of “all commissions paid” to

Ms. Beckley and the above named coworkers. Time Warner argues

that these requests are not likely to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence because Ms. Craig-Wood has not argued she was

discriminated against or retaliated against by being paid less

commission than these individuals. However, these commission

documents might demonstrate that Ms. Beckley and these coworkers

were engaged in fraudulent activity and were therefore paid

higher commissions. If Ms. Craig-Wood can show that her

coworkers or her supervisor were engaging in fraudulent activity,

that information may support Ms. Craig-Wood’s claim that the real

reason she was disciplined or terminated was not for fraudulent

activity but because of discrimination or retaliation. 

Therefore, this information is relevant and must be produced. 

B. Unemployment Claim Files

In document request no. 28, Ms. Craig-Wood has asked for

copies of all documents provided to the Ohio Department of Job

and Family Services and/or the Unemployment Compensation Review

Commission which explain the reason for the termination of Ms.

Craig-Wood, Bianca Beckley, Tenesia Tyus, Carmella Weiser, and Ty

Harris.

As noted above, Ty Harris is not involved in Ms. CraigWood’s allegations nor is he a comparable employee. Therefore,

the reasons for his termination are irrelevant to this case. 

As to the remaining individuals listed, Ms. Craig-Wood is

entitled to these documents because they may demonstrate that Ms.

Beckley as well as coworkers Ms. Tyus and Ms. Weiser were or were

not terminated for engaging in fraudulent activity. If Ms.

Craig-Wood can demonstrate that Ms. Beckley was herself engaging

in fraudulent activity, then it may support her claim that the

reason for Ms. Craig-Wood’s termination was not fraudulent

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
10

activity, but instead discrimination and retaliation. Similarly,

if she can demonstrate that her coworkers were terminated for

reasons other than fraudulent activity, it may support her claim

that discrimination and retaliation were the real reason for Ms.

Craig-Wood’s termination.

IV. Conclusion

Ms. Craig-Woods motion to compel (Doc. #35) is granted in

part and denied in part. Time Warner is ordered to produce

documents to Ms. Craig-Wood consistent with this opinion within

fourteen days.

V. Procedure on Objections

Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is

filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. I., F.,

5. The motion must specifically designate the order or part in

question and the basis for any objection. Responses to objections

are due fourteen days after objections are filed and replies by

the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. The District

Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part

of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the

filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge

or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-00906-JLG-TPK Doc #: 42 Filed: 04/16/12 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>