1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MAURIE MOORE, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Case No.: 4:22-cv-00201-Y 

 ) 

CARVANA ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

____________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL 

AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Now comes the Plaintiff, Maurie Moore (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Moore”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, 37, and Local 

Rules 5.2 and 7.1 and files her Motion to Compel discovery responses from Defendant, Carvana, 

Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Carvana”). Specifically, Defendant has failed to provide 

responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests served on November 2, 2022. Despite conferral with 

Defendant as detailed below, Defendant has failed to provide its response to Interrogatory No. 3

under improper objection of “overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the 

discovery of relevant information.

1

” Plaintiff is entitled to the information requested in 

Interrogatory No. 3 as the requested information is proportional to the needs of the case. Thus, 

Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

1 On December 1, 2015, with Congress’s consent the Supreme Court amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(FRCP). The amendments included FRCP 26 wherein the legal standard was changed from to now information is 

discoverable if it is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, with several 

proportionality factors now stated in the rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.; See also State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v.

Freehold Management, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123283 at *5 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2018) (The 2015 amendments to 

Rule 26 deleted from the definition of relevance information that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence because [t]he phrase has been used by some, incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery and 

has continued to create problems given its ability to swallow any other limitation on the scope of 

discovery.)(quotations omitted). 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID 90
2 

Defendant to provide responses to Interrogatory No. 3 and in support thereof she states the 

following: 

I. Procedural History and Background. 

In her Complaint Plaintiff alleges claims of sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment, 

and retaliation. [Doc. 1]. At issue in the instant Motion is Defendant’s refusal to provide its 

response, or a proper objection(s), to Interrogatory No. 3 which requests the following: 

“INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify by providing full name, job title(s), 

age at the time of termination, and dates of employment for all female 

employees in Defendant’s employ from 2019- present who worked at 

Defendant’s 1123 Cantrell Sansom Road, Blue Mound, Texas 76131 

location and held the same positions as Plaintiff during their 

employment.”

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 3 requests information that is proportional to the needs of her 

case, namely identifying other employees who worked at Plaintiff’s job site, each employee’s 

position, age, and dates of employment for a limited time frame.

On November 2, 2022 Plaintiff served Interrogatories and Request for Production on 

Defendant. On December 1, 2022, Defendant’s Counsel requested a one-week extension, thereby 

making Defendant’s responses due on or before December 9, 2022, and Plaintiff’s Counsel granted 

the extension. (See Plaintiff’s Appendix in Support “App.” Pg. 1). On December 9, 2022, 

Defendant produced responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production. In its 

responses Defendant raised claims of privilege as to Interrogatory No. 1 yet failed to provide a 

privilege log and improperly objected to Interrogatories 3, 6, and 21. 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID 91
3 

On December 12, 2022 Plaintiff conferred with Defendant via phone regarding the 

discovery disputes and proposed solutions were explored, Plaintiff commemorated the December 

12, 2022 conversation via email on December 13, 2022. (See App. Pgs. 2-3). Defendant replied

December 19, 2022 and further refused to provide the requested information in Interrogatory 3. 

(See App. Pg. 4). While the parties were able to confer and successfully resolve the discovery 

disputes as to Interrogatories 1, 6, and 21; a dispute remains as to Interrogatory No. 3. Without 

Defendant’s discovery response as to Interrogatory No. 3 Plaintiff will undoubtedly be prejudiced 

as the information requested is proportional to the needs of her case and will leave her unable to 

evaluate proper deponents, unable to properly prepare for depositions, and will be unable to obtain 

answers to dispositive questions regarding the relevant topics. 

II. Argument and Authorities. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit parties to “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)(1); McGowan v. Southern Methodist University, 2020 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 79456 at *2, 3 (N.D. Tex. May 6, 2020). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure further 

provide for a proportionality standard for discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Dennis v. United

States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174856 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2017); OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc.

v. Propel Orthodontics, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51401 at *5 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2017). 

Also relevant to this Motion is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 which provides in 

pertinent part: 

(a) MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OR 

DISCOVERY. 

(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a 

party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion 

must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID 92
4 

attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or 

discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. 

... 

(3) Specific Motions. 

(B) To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking discovery may

move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or 

inspection. This motion may be made if: 

... 

(iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; 

or 

(iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that 

inspection will be permitted – or fails to permit inspection – as requested 

under Rule 34. 

(4) Evasive or Incomplete Disclosure, Answer, or Response. For 

purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, 

or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. See 

also Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pink, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15732 

at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2019). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits a party to seek an order compelling an answer. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B); Southern Methodist at *2. The Fifth Circuit provides that once a party, 

in the instant matter the Plaintiff, meets its burden to show the information sought is relevant or 

will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence the burden then shifts back to the opposing party

to show why the requested information is irrelevant or show that it fails the proportionality 

requirement. Southern Methodist at *2. Courts construe relevance broadly. Meaning, the evidence 

and information sought does not need to by itself prove or disprove a claim, further the evidence 

or information sought does not even need to have a strong probative force to be relevant. Id. at 3.

Finally, when ruling on discovery matters under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 the court should look to balance 

the need for Plaintiff’s request against the harm, prejudice, and burden to Defendant. Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID 93
5 

Here, the information sought in Interrogatory No. 3 is relevant and Plaintiff has met her 

burden of showing why the information sought is so. By contrast, Defendant has not and cannot 

met its burden. When analyzing the balance between Plaintiff’s need for the information in 

response to Interrogatory No. 3 and the possible harm, prejudice, or burden to defendant, it is clear 

that the scale tips dramatically and unequivocally in Plaintiff’s favor. 

A. Defendant has Failed to Answer Interrogatory 3 and Has Otherwise Failed to 

Show How Plaintiff’s Request is Not Relevant or Otherwise Objectionable

In Propel Orthodontics the plaintiff requested financial records to assist in its damage

calculation and to defend against damage claims. The defendant objected on the basis that the 

requested information “contain sales information for other products in Propel’s [defendant] line

that are not the subject of this litigation.” The court was not convinced and found that the plaintiff

should not be deprived of information simply because the defendant sells multiple products which

are all listed in its financials. Propel Orthodontics, at *7. Additionally, the court in Propel 

Orthodontics did not find plaintiff’s request unduly burdensome or duplicative. Id. at 8, 9. 

Additionally, in Southern Methodist the court found that defendant’s request for access to

plaintiff’s multiple social media accounts was proper. Southern Methodist at 4,5. The court 

however clarified that defendant’s access was not “unlimited” as unlimited access is too broad. Id. 

at 5; See also State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Freehold Management, 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 123283 at *34 - 40 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2018) (holding that a request to “Identify every 

person who participated to any degree in reviewing the decision to deny or pay Defendant/CounterPlaintiff's claim in whole or in part before you received Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's demand 

letter in this case or their lawsuit. In addition, the involvement of each person identified, state the 

date each such review was performed and state the result of the review.” was proper and the 

responding party was ordered to provide a complete answer without objection).

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID 94
6

Here, in Interrogatory No. 3 Plaintiff requests information about the names, job title(s), age 

at the time of termination, and dates of employment for all female employees in Defendant’s 

employ from 2019 - present who worked at Defendant’s 1123 Cantrell Sansom Road, Blue Mound, 

Texas 76131 location and held the same positions as Plaintiff during their employment. See Supra

Sec. I. In its December 8, 2022 response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Defendant stated as follows: 

“Carvana objects to this request as overly broad and unduly 

burdensome. The identities of other female employees who worked at the 

same location as Plaintiff from 2019 to present have no bearing on Plaintiff’s 

claims or Defendant’s defenses, inasmuch as the request is not limited to 

employees who worked under the same supervisors. There are three shifts 

working at Defendant’s Blue Mound Inspection Center (“IC”), with 

numerous Inventory Associate I positions, including in both the Detail and 

Inventory departments. Further, the request for age-related information is 

outside the bounds of reasonable discovery, as Plaintiff is not alleging any 

age-related claims. This interrogatory therefore seeks information wholly 

unrelated to the claims and defenses at issue in this lawsuit. FED. R. CIV. P. 

26(b)(1). Defendant further objects to this request to the extent it seeks the 

confidential information of individuals who are not parties to this action, 

implicating the privacy considerations of uninvolved third parties. Carvana 

is willing to confer with Plaintiff’s counsel on reasonable limits to this 

interrogatory that will bring it the scope of discovery permitted by the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID 95
7 

Similar to Propel Orthodontics, here, Defendant should not be permitted to withhold 

information requested in Interrogatory No. 3 simply because “a list of all females at Defendant’s 

Blue facility who held Inventory I, Associate Detail or Photobooth positions from Nov. 2017 to 

Nov. 2019 is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant

information.” (See App. Pg. 4). Not only is that an improper and borderline boilerplate objection, 

it is improper as Plaintiff is entitled to the information as it is relevant and proportional to the needs 

of her case. Counsel discussed potentially limiting this request to a certain shift at Plaintiff’s work 

location however, narrowing the request as such prejudices Plaintiff as it does not provide a full 

picture and instead is akin to cherry picking. 

Additionally and like Southern Methodist here, Plaintiff is not requesting unlimited access

to Defendant’s records, she is simply requesting Defendant by providing full name, job title(s),

age at the time of termination, and dates of employment for all female employees in Defendant’s

employ from 2019- present who worked at Defendant’s 1123 Cantrell Sansom Road, Blue Mound, 

Texas 76131 location and held the same positions as Plaintiff during their employment. Plaintiff

has narrowed her request to a specific time frame and location, and well as defined demographic 

and job-related inquiries – hardly an unfettered or unlimited request. 

As discussed above, Plaintiff has met her burden to show how the requested information is 

relevant and proportional. To date, Defendant had failed to provide the requested information or 

otherwise explain via specific objections how Interrogatory No. 3 is overly broad, burdensome, or 

oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden and 

how the requested information fails the proportionality calculation– it has not done so. Thus, 

Defendant should be compelled to answer Interrogatory No. 3. 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID 96
8 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is entitled to a response as to Interrogatory No. 3 as it is relevant and proportional, 

she will be prejudiced if the response is withheld. Specifically, the information requested in 

Interrogatory No. 3 is sought to prove Defendant’s pattern and practice of discriminatory behavior 

specifically as it relates to female employees that held a similar role as Plaintiff, to establish the 

causal elements of Plaintiff’s claims, and properly depose and potentially impeach witnesses. 

There are no other means for Plaintiff to obtain the information requested in Interrogatory No. 3 

as that information is solely in Defendant’s possession, custody, and control. Despite Plaintiff’s 

repeated attempts to resolve the discovery deficiency as to Interrogatory No. 3 without Court 

intervention, those attempts have proved unsuccessful. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests 

that this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to provide responses to 

Interrogatory No. 3. 

Local Rule 7.1(b) Conferral and Certificate of Conference

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b) I hereby certify that counsel for the movant has conferred 

with Defendant in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised herein. Plaintiff’s conferred with 

Defendant on December 12, 2022 via phone and via email on December 13, 2022 regarding the 

proposed edits to the objected Interrogatory No. 3. (See App. Pgs. 2-3). Defendant replied

December 19, 2022 and reasserted its objection to Plaintiff’s requested information. (See App. Pg. 

4). Counsel conferred on January 17, 2023 as to the relief requested in this instant Motion and 

Defendant advised the relief requested herein is Opposed. 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID 97
9 

Date: January 27, 2023 

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Eric D. Rogers 

Eric D. Rogers 

Lisa Scheibly

Eric.rogers@spielbergerlawgroup.com 

Lisa.Scheibly@spielbergerlawgroup.com 

SPIELBERGER LAW GROUP

4890 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 950 

Tampa, Florida 33609 

Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of January 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing has been filed with the Court using the Court’s CM/ECF system which provided notice 

to all parties of record: 

Kimberly R. Miers

Texas State Bar No. 24041482 

kmiers@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

2001 Ross Avenue 

Suite 1500, Lock Box 116 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

214.880.8100 (Telephone) 

214.880.0181 (Facsimile) 

Emily R. Linn

Texas State Bar No. 24109478 

LITTLER MENDELSON

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 

Austin, Texas 78701 

512.924.7087 (Telephone) 

512.532.6501 (Facsimile) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 22 Filed 01/27/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID 98