previous briefs filed with the Court, we will allow the defendant to file a response brief
before deciding whether to order it to either admit, deny, or set forth in detail the reasons
it can do neither to requests 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24. We
recognize that Northern Trust believes that content of its submissions to the EEOC was
entirely proper. However, defendant's reasons for making certain submissions, and the
plaintiff's different opinion about those reasons, is not a proper subject of this motion. The
parties will have the opportunity to discuss the legal implications of each of their actions
in the context of a motion for summary judgment or at trial.

Plaintiff's Interrogatory Served With Leave of Court

In open court and pursuant to our January 24, 2002 order, we allowed the plaintiff
to serve an additional interrogatory, with subparts, “regarding the identification of team
leaders and employees under the supervision of plaintiff's supervisors from January, 1998
to December, 1999.” The interrogatory plaintiff eventually served, with eleven discrete
subparts, asks for information beyond the scope contemplated by our order. Thus,
Northern Trust is ordered to answer subparts a, b, c, and j of the interrogatory only, except
that for subpart j, Northern Trust should identify every employee who worked on each team
identified in subpart b.

Plaintiff's Sixth Set of Interrogatories

Defendant indicates in its objections to these interrogatories that it intends to file a
protective order regarding them and we will allow it to do so before examining the
substance of any of the requests. Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file a brief reply.

For the above reasons, plaintiffs motion for leave to file a motion to compel is
granted and the actual motion to compel is granted in part, denied in part and defendant

4


but rather a procedure for obtaining admissions for the record of facts already known by
the seeker. 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2253 (1994). “The purpose of Rule 36 is to allow parties to narrow the
issues to be resolved at trial by effectively identifying and eliminating those matters on
which the parties agree.” United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1350 (7" Cir. 1987)
cited in Anderson v. City of Wood Dale, Illinois, No. 93 C 425, 1997 WL 43417 (N.D.IIL,
January 28, 1997). Requests to admit 1, 2, and 3 are not designed for this purpose,
indeed, they appear to challenge the defendant's veracity regarding its search for
documents. Therefore, defendant's objections to requests 41,2, and 3 are upheld.

Requests to admit 4 through 22 are apparently designed to support plaintiff's belief
that defendant's EEO officer, Richard Bordelon, intentionally submitted a position
statement and documentary evidence to the EEOC that misrepresented various facts
regarding plaintiffs complaints of discrimination and the racial makeup of plaintiff's
department and of individuals who were promoted to 2TM Vice President. Regardless of
the possible relevancy of this inquiry, requests 8, 9, 10, 13, 21 and 22 are vague, and thus
improperly worded, so defendant's objections to them are upheld.?

The remaining requests to admit are arguably proper, even though some of them
ask for admissions of opinions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36. However, since the subject matter

of some of the requests has already been discussed in depositions, interrogatories, and

2 For example, requests 8 and 9 ask defendant to admit whether Bordelon
“purposefully” omitted certain information about the plaintiff from his position statement to
the EEOC. The word “purposefully” is vague and subject to differing interpretations and
thus these requests are improper. Similarly, the words “accurately” and “knowingly misled”
(sic) are vague and thus improper subjects of requests to admit.

3


is allowed the opportunity to respond to the remaining matters before we render a decision.
Defendant must file its response brief by March 29, 2002; plaintiff must file her reply by

April 8, 2002. It is so ordered.

ENTER:

Ake FH ~
MICHAEL T. ‘MASON
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 18, 2002


4 Minwie Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assi Sitting Judge if Other i
a Maatstrate Judes Donald E. Walter iting Judge Other Michael T. Mason
CASE NUMBER 01 C 2290 DATE 3/18/2002
CASE Stallings-Daniel vs. Northern Trust Co.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented. ]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) 0 Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.}

Q) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) Qo Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon__setfor___—_at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__—s at.

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——ssetfor_—saat__—

(a) o Trial[set for/re-set for]on___ at

(8) QO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_______ at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) (General Rule 21 CIFRCP41(a)(1) CI FRCP4i(a)(2).

ao) =f [Other docket entry] Plaintiff's motion for leave to compel defendant to increase time to depose

Kay Vicino and respond to certain requests is granted. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum
Opinion and Order, the actual motion to compel is granted in part, denied in part and defendant is allowed
the opportunity to respond to the remaining matters before the court renders a decision. Defendant must
file its response brief by 3/29/02; plaintiff must file her reply by 4/8/02. Enter Memorandum Opinion and
Order.

j

(1) | [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document

Number

No notices required. number of notices

MAR 19 2002

VY | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
3/18/2002

courtroom go ity QL ues 20 dosnuilot
KF deputy’s -
initials

central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

SHIRLEY STALLINGS-DANIEL

Plaintiff,
No. 01 C 2290
Vv.
Judge Donald E. Walter

THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, Mag. Judge Mason

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff in this employment discrimination case has filed two more discovery motions
seeking to obtain evidence from the defendant, Northern Trust. One seeks leave to
compel the defendant to comply with various parts of her fifth set of document requests,
fourth set of requests for admissions, sixth set of interrogatories, and an extra interrogatory
she served with leave of court. The second motion asks that the Court determine the
sufficiency of defendant's objections to her fifth set of requests for admissions. As is
apparent from the mere recitation of the substance of the motions, discovery in the case
is getting out of hand. A review of the plaintiff's requests indicates that many of them relate
to discovery issues that the parties have been discussing and disputing for months, and
which the plaintiff believes have not been adequately addressed. We do not entirely
agree with plaintiff's characterization of what documents are still outstanding and/or even
relevant to her claims, but find that in order to put an end to some of the outstanding
discovery disputes they need to be addressed. Therefore, since plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a motion to compel contains argument and nine exhibits, we will consider it her

motion to compel. As explained below, we grant some of her requests and deny some

oD


others outright, and allow the defendant to file a response to the remaining requests before
we make a final determination about them.

Plaintiff's Fifth Request for Production of Documents:

This request encompassed 14 separate categories of documents, of which plaintiff
has withdrawn two and one subpart of a third. Many of the requests cover documents
which were (or should have been) already produced. For example, in open court,
defendant stated that it would search for any e-mail documents that are referenced in
other, already produced e-mails. Thus, to the extent it can, defendant must certify to the
plaintiff that it has looked for and produced, or is unable to locate, all documents
responsive to each request. For any requests that the defendant objects to on relevance
grounds, it may file a short brief explaining its objection, to which the plaintiff may reply.
Defendant does not need to identify documents it has already produced by bates label
according to the plaintiff's newly listed categories. Northern Trust has already identified
the documents as responsive to earlier requests; it does not need to review them a second
time and recategorize them according to plaintiff's additional theories of her case.’
Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Requests to Admit

A number of plaintiff's requests to admit are not proper, as they do not seek the
admission of facts relevant to the case, but instead attempt to “test” various employees of

defendant on their diligence in searching for documents. Rule 36 is not a discovery device,

‘ For example, request seven asks Defendant to produce or identify all documents
which it relies on “to support Kay Vicino’s alleged reasons for her reluctance to appoint
Plaintiff as Valuations Team Leader.” Plaintiff has already deposed Vicino and still has
time remaining to complete the deposition. She can question Vicino about her alleged
reluctance then.