UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

) ) MARC IA A. LURENSKY , ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1199 ( HHK/JMF) ) JON WELL ING HOFF , Chairm an, ) F ederal Energy R egulatory Com m ission , ) ) Defendan t. )

)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION This case was re fer

red to me by

J udg e Ke nnedy

for the pur

pose of ha

ndling a ll discovery and discove ry -re lated disputes. B efor e me a re se vera l motions : the defe ndant’s Motion for a Protective Or der With Respect to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Docume nts and for a n Orde r L imiti ng the Number of Rule 34 and Rule 36 Reque sts That Each Par ty May Serve [#19, 20] and the plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel the Production of Doc uments [#23]

. I. Background Plaintiff Marcia

Lurensky bring s this action, proce eding pro se , ag ainst the Fe dera l Energ y Reg ulatory

Commi ssion (“F ERC”) alleg ing violations of Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq ., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 1 § 791 et seq . Plaintiff alleg es five c auses of action: discrimination on the basis of g ender , relig ion, and disability ; retaliation; and a hostile work environme nt. Amended Complaint (“Am.

A l l r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o d e a r e t o t h e e l e c t r o n i c v e r s i o n t h a t a p p e a r s i n W e s t l a w o r L e x i s . 1Compl.”) [#34] ¶ 1.

Plaintiff was employ ed since 1990 as an attorney in FERC’s Off

ice of Gene ral Counsel. Am. Compl. ¶ 9. Pl aintiff alleg es that af ter opposing cer

tain employ

ment prac tices, a pr otected activity , she wa s targ eted in a r etaliatory manner and subjec ted to a hostile work e nvironment and discrimination. Am. Compl . ¶ 31. Specific ally , plaintiff alleg es she wa s subject to reta liatory acts including the monitoring of her c omputer and doc uments, substandard pe rfor mance evaluations, and a denia l of administrative lea ve, compe nsatory

time, and re assig nment, among others. Am. Compl. ¶ 35. Reg arding her c laim of hostile work environme nt, plaintiff additionally

alleg es that she wa s treate d neg atively by other e mploy ees a

nd was subjec ted to hostile acts. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23, 36. Plaintiff’s alleg ation of disability discrimination is based larg ely on the re vocation of a ccommodations for her disability . Am. Compl. ¶ 32. Pl aintiff alleg es re ligious discrimination based on a denial of r elig ious compensatory time and/or administrative leave for Jewish holiday s. Am. Compl. ¶ 33. Finally , plaintiff alleg es g ender discrimination based on re taliatory alleg ations of sexual harassment lodg ed ag ainst her. Am. Compl. ¶ 34. On Marc h 3, 2009, plaintiff serve d on defe ndant 109 document r equests per Rule 34 of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e. Def endant subseque ntly

moved for this protec tive order 2 quashing plaintiff’s re quest on the basis that it is too volum inous and seekingto limi t to thirty

eac h the number of

Rule 34 document re quests and Rule 36 re quests for a dmissions submitt ed per pa rty . Plaintiff cross-moved to c ompel defe ndant to respond to her reque st for produc tion.

A l l r e f e r e n c e s t o “ t h e R u l e s ” o r “ R u l e [ N o . ] ” r e f e r t o t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . 2 2II. Analysis

The scope of discover

y permitted in civil actions is broad, pe rmitting discover y of any materia l releva

nt to a claim or de fense , including material inadmissible at trial but re asonably likely to lead to admissible evidenc e. F ed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Historica lly , Title VI Iplaintiffs have be en allowe d a ver

y broad sc ope of discove ry . Pleasants v. Allbaug h, 208 F.R.D. 7, 9 (D.D.C. 2002). Tr ial courts ar e af forde d considera

ble discre tion in manag ing the discovery proce ss. Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V. v. B aca rdi & Co. L td., 247 F.R.D. 198, 201 (D.D .C. 2008) (c iting F ood L ion I nc. v. United F ood and Commercia l Workers I nt’l Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012 (D.C. Cir.1997). A. Def endant’s Moti on for Protective O rder and to Lim it Num ber of Rule 34 and 36 Requests Def endant a rg ues that it should be relieve d of re sponding to plaintiff’ s reque sts for document produc tion on the gr ounds that the larg e number of re quests is disproportionate to the litigation. Memora

ndum in Support of Defe ndant’s Motion for Protec tive Orde r [#19] (“D ef.’ s Mem.”) at 1. Defe ndant does not objec t to any individual request. Rather , it lodges w hat essentially

is a blanket objec tion ag ainst the reque st as a whole a s overly broad a nd burdensome, calling it “scorc hed ea

rth” litigation. Defe ndant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Orde r [#27] at 1. Def

endant ur g es the c ourt to quash plaintiff’s e ntire re quest. Plaintiff counters that e ach of the 109 re quests are rele vant and mate rial to her c auses of action and ne cessa

ry to meeting her bur den of pr oof. Plaintiff’s Memora ndum in Oppositi on to Motion for Protective Or der [#24] (“Pl.’s Opp.”) a t 23. Plainti ff f urther a rg ues that her

reque st for pr oduction comports with Rule 34 of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure be cause eac h reque st is set forth with particular ity . Pl.’s Opp. at 4.
31. Rule 34 Requirem ents :

Rule 34 plainly

states that objections to reque sts for produc tion must be made on an individual basis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)( B) (“F or each item or category , the re sponse must ... state an obje ction to the reque st, including the r easons.” ) (e mphasis added) . Inasmuch a s the defe ndant’s motion is an attempt at a blanke t objection to the entire pr oduction reque st as overly burdensome, it is insufficient unde r this frame work. 2. Rule 26 Requirem ents : Rule 26 allows for the c ourt’s interve ntion to li mit the scope of discove ry via a pr otective order if, for e x ample, the discove ry soug ht will be unrea sonably cumulative or duplicative or unduly burdensome. F ed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). The movant must show good c ause f or the proposed limitation of discovery , including spe cific, a rticulable f

acts a nd not merely

specula tive

or conc lusory

statements. J enning s v. Family Manag ement, 201 F .R.D. 272, 275 (D.D.C. 2001) (citing Alexander v. F BI , 186 F.R.D. 71, 74 (D .D.C.1998)). The defe ndant’s motion contains no specific fac ts showing how r esponding to plaintiff’s produc tion requests would be unduly burdensome or

otherwise de serving

of the prote ctive orde r. De fenda nt simpl y relies on the f

act that plaintiff’s re quest is “fa cially excessive” a s its evidence that the reque st is overly burdensome a

nd states, “it would be be y ond the scope of this motion t o identify eac h example of

an over ly broad, irr eleva

nt, redunda

nt, and/or burde nsome reque st.” Def .’s Mem. at 5. Abse nt a specific articula tion of fac ts supporting its conclusion that the plaintiff’ s reque st is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or burdensome, the defe ndant has not prof fer ed the r equire d g ood cause to support the issuance of a prote ctive orde r.

43. Limit ations on Ru le 34 and 36 Requests :

Def endant a dditionally

reque sts that this Court limi t to thirty eac h the number of

reque sts for doc ument production and a dmissions permitted per party . The de fenda

nt corre ctly

notes that other jurisdictions have imposed suc h a limit, gene rally by local rule , but the District of

3 Columbi a is not among them. The pa rties themselves ha d an opportunity to set the limit s on discovery in their initial confer ence as allowe d by this Court’s local rules. See L CvR 16.3(C)(8). Given the br oad scope of discover y permitted by

the Fe dera l Rules and the fa ct that this District’s local rule s put the initi al onus of limiting discover y on the par

ties, Iam re luctant at this stag e to impose any per se limit s on the extent of discovery with respec t to requests for production. As to the re quests for a dmission, i t is premature at this stage to reque st a limit ation as no re quests have y et bee n serve d upon the def endant. Ac cording ly , Iwill deny without prejudice the defe ndant’s motion as to the requests for admission. B. Plaint iff’s Motion to Com

pel Plaintiff urg es the Court to compel de fenda nt to comply

with her re quest for pr oduction,

asser ting that the r equests ar e within the scope of applica ble discover

y and a motion is appropr iate due to a

failure of the pa

rties to come to an a g ree ment following a g ood-fa ith confe rra l. Plainti ff’ s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Com pel [#23] (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 4-5. Def endant oppose s the motion for essentially the same r easons a s put forth in support of its motion for a prote ctive orde r, name ly , that the re quests are too voluminous to require compliance . Def

endant’ s Memorandum in Opposition to Moti on to Compel [ #29] at 1-2.

S e e , e . g . , O k l a h o m a e x . r e l

. E d m o n d s o n v . T y s o n F o o d s , I n c . , N o . 0 5

- C V

- 3 2 9

- T C K

- S A J , 2 0 0 7 W L 3 5 4 8 3 1 , a t * 2 ( N

. D

. O k l a . J a n . 5 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( l o c a l r u l e s l i m i t r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n t o 2 5 p e r p a r t y ) ; E s t a t e o f M a n s h i p v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 2 3 2 F

. R

. D

. 5 5 2 ( M

. D

. L a . 2 0 0 5 ) ( l o c a l r u l e s l i m i t r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n t o 2 5 p e r p a r t y )

. 5Rule 37 permits the court to compe l discovery provided the pa

rties have attempted in g ood faith to resolve the issue among themselves bef ore r esorting to court ac tion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) (1). He re, the parties c onfer red a nd wer e unable to rea ch an a g ree ment prior to the dea dline for r esponse. Pl.’s Mem. at 5. Plaintiff’s doc ument reque st complies with the basic re quirements of Rule 34: the re quests are set out with particular ity and include a

time, place, a

nd manner

for inspection. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 34(b)( 1). As pre viously stated, the pe rmissible scope of discove ry , espec ially in a Title VI Icase , is very broad. H oweve r, it is not a license to conduc t a limitl ess amount of discover

y ; the reque sts must be re asonably limit ed tempora lly

and to the appr opriate “employ ment unit.” Glenn v. Willi ams, 209 F.R.D. 279, 281- 82 (D.D.C. 2002). Plaintiff must adher e to these limitations, and defe ndant has the a bility to object on g rounds of ove rbre adth, irrele vance , or undue bur den to any reque st it believes is not withi n these limits or those set forth in the Rules. Never

theless, plaintiff is at lea st entitled to a response to he r initial request. Plaintiff proposes that def endant r espond to the re quest for pr oduction within ten day s. Howeve r, g iven the lar g e number of re quests, Ithink it appropriate to g ive the def endant a thirty

day window duringwhich it must respond to plaintiff’s first re quest for pr oduction, either by making available the re sponsive materia l or objecting individually to the reque sts. III

. Conclusion For the fore g oing r easons, de fenda nt’s Motion for a Protec tive Orde r [#19] will be denied and its Motion for an Or der L imiti ng the Number of Rule 34 and Rule 36 Reque sts [ #20] wil l be denied with re spect to Rule 34 and de nied without prejudice with respec t to Rul e 36. Plaintiff’s Motion to C ompel [#23] will be g rante d. An Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

6Date: June 16, 2009 /S/ J OHN M. F ACCI OL A U.S. MAGI STRATE J UDGE

7