the Court finds that his amended answers are adequate.
Interrogatory No. 2

In Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant seeks Plaintiff's basis for
seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages in this
action. Plaintiff's amended answer to the interrogatory makes
clear that he has not given a great deal of thought to his damages
calculations, indicating--notwithstanding the statute of
limitations problem--that he will seek back pay for Defendant’s
alleged failure to train and promote him for almost a 30-year
period. He will also seek an unspecified amount of damages based
on Defendant’s alleged failure to accommodate his alleged
disability which, he claims, worsened his symptoms. Finally,
Plaintiff will seek punitive damages based on malice against him.
The amended answer is adequate.
Interrogatory No. 3

In Interrogatory No. 3, Defendant seeks knowledge about any
and all oral, written or recorded statements that Plaintiff has in
his possession from Defendant’s current or former employees.
Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory on the basis of
attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine, but then
refers Defendant to the 111 documents that he produced to Defendant
in response to Defendant's discovery requests. At oral argument,
Plaintiff conceded that he is not invoking privilege as to any

documents. The Court assumes that Plaintiff is not aware of the


numerous documents from which Defendant may discern the answers to
interrogatories are not proper responses to the interrogatories.
It appears that the documents to which Plaintiff refers were sent
to Plaintiff by Defendant pursuant to discovery requests and/or
were obtained from the EEOC. Plaintiff has indicated that he might
decide to depose many of the 18 current and former employees and
supervisors, apparently with no knowledge as to what they might
say. The discovery deadline has already passed in this case. As
the Court has repeatedly pointed out to Plaintiff’s counsel,
Defendant is entitled to as much information as he has regarding
the identities of his expected witnesses and generally what their
testimony will be, so that Defendant can make a decision as to
whether to interview or depose them. Plaintiff has failed to do
so, and the Court assumes that Plaintiff has no information as to
what any potential witnesses--except Plaintiff himself--knows
regarding the allegations that he has made in the Complaint. In
the event Plaintiff decides to depose any of the identified
potential witnesses, Defendant may inguire as to whether and when
Plaintiff contacted such individuals and what they said to
Plaintiff. If it appears that Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a) (1)
disclosures were not complete when made, a motion in limine might
be appropriate. Proceeding on the assumption that Plaintiff has no
further information regarding the knowledge of the individuals whom

he has identified in response to Interrogatories 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9,


existence of any such statements, and any such statements, if they
exist, will be barred. Based on the assumption that no such
statements exist, Plaintiff’s answer is sufficient.
Interrogatory No. 7

In Interrogatory No. 7, Defendant seeks the identities of and
other information regarding medical personnel whom Plaintiff has
consulted with or been treated by since 1992, Plaintiff’s amended
answer to this interrogatory is adequate.
Interrogatory No. 8

Plaintiff’s amended answer to Interrogatory No. 8, in which he
sets forth the case captions and subject matter of all litigation
in which he has been a party or witness, is adequate.
Interrogatory No. 10

The amended answer is adequate, although it appears that
Plaintiff does not intend to call any expert witnesses, only
treating physicians, if allowed by the Court in view of the
expiration of the discovery deadline.
Interrogatory No. ii

Consistent with the Court’s observations and rulings with
regard to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9, no useful purpose
would be served by requiring Plaintiff to set forth the documents
on which he relied in preparing the answers to the interrogatories.
While the objection is improper, it appears that Plaintiff relied

on his own testimony and the documents that were produced by

-5-


‘invte Order Form-{06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Hinois

wage Magistrate luge Paul 8. Plunkett “than Anigned Suge Arlander Keys
CASE NUMBER 02 C 8675 DATE 6/27/2003
CASE Nick Episcopo vs. General Motors Corporation
TITLE

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

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

@M a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

Q) Oo Brief in support of motion due

3) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due

(4) aQ Ruling/Hearingon set for_ at

(5) a) Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——sset fort

(6) a Pretrial conference{held/continued to) [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___—sat_
[C) aQ Trial{set for/re-set for}on__— at

(8) Q {Bench/Jury trial} {Hearing} held/continued to at

9) im) This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4¢n) O Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) (© FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) MM [Other docket entry} Memorandum Opinion and Order entered. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions
against Plaintiff or, in the alternative, to Compel Discovery [#10] is hereby granted in part and denied
in part. Status hearing set for 7/16/03 remains in effect. At

ai) @ {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

2

No notices required. 2 ._Sioimber ofgartices

a
/ | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. Ps

Notified counse} by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

iunaa {o1UsSIq'S'f

| Copy to judgemagistrate judge.

courtroom Sil hd LOR eu

FY/ deputy’s
, initials r
U inddatinEdeabildecds
central Clerk’s Office

mailing deputy initia's



Defendant and /or received from the EEOC,

Conclusion

While Plaintiff’s original answers to most of the
interrogatories were inadequate, after being admonished by the
Court, his amended answers were adequate. The fact is, however,
that Defendant was required to file the instant Motion and to
appear before the Court on two occasions in order to achieve
compliance. Moreover, Plaintiff's failure to provide clearly
relevant information about potential witnesses has prevented
Defendant from further investigating and scheduling depositions,
and the deadline for completion of discovery--June 16, 2003, which
was set by this Court on February 14, 2003~-has passed. The Court
awards to Defendant its attorneys fees for the appearance before
the Court on June 2, 2003.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for
Sanctions against Plaintiff or, in the alternative, to Compel
Discovery be, and the same hereby is, granted in part and denied in

part. Status hearing set for 7/16/03 stands.

Dated: June 27, 2003 ENTER:

Ou ouoe,

ARLANDER KEYS  ~<\
United States Magistrate Judge



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

NICK EPISCOPO, Case No. 02 C 8675 5G6:

Plaintiff,

Magistrate Judge
Arlander Keys

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Y
alts.

Oo.

,

Defendant.
if

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In the Complaint herein, Plaintiff, who began work for
Defendant in 1969, alleges that, beginning in 1974, Defendant
discriminated against him in failing to promote him, treated him
differently from other employees, and created a hostile work
environment for him because of his national origin (Italian). He
also alleges that, after he filed grievances with his union
regarding these issues, Defendant retaliated against him in
unspecified ways. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from
a disability, within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and that Defendant failed to accommodate his alleged
disabilities.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, or, in

the alternative, to Compel Discovery. This Motion relates to

Judge Paul E. Plunkett 7 9 2yqo


Plaintiff’s responses to discovery after the Court, on May 9, 2003,
ordered him to file proper initial disclosures by May 16, 2003. In
its Motion of May 29, 2003, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff did
not make his initial disclosures until May 27, 2003 and that the
disclosures were woefully inadequate. At a hearing on the Motion
on June 2, 2003, the Court pointed out to Plaintiff’s counsel the
many deficiencies in his answers to interrogatories and ordered him
to amend his answers by June 9, 2003. At the June 20, 2003 status
hearing, Defendant informed the Court that Plaintiff’s amended
answers were deficient, whereupon Plaintiff’s counsel stated that
he would stand on his amended answers to the interrogatories.

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9

Defendant seeks the names, addresses and telephone numbers of
individuals whom Plaintiff believes to have information regarding
Plaintiff's national origin discrimination, disability discrimi-
nation, retaliation claim, and the basis of his claim for punitive
damages. In his amended answers to each of the five interrog-
atories, Plaintiff listed the names of the same 18 current and
former employees and supervisors, an employee of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and six physicians.
Plaintiff prefaced all of his answers with various objections and
reference to documents numbered “1 through 111," which he had
earlier produced to Defendant or Defendant had produced to him. As

the Court pointed out to Plaintiff’s counsel, the references to