1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JOSEPH R. SEALS,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

4:23CV3079

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. Filing No. 41. At 

issue in this motion are three requests for production that seek Defendant’s 

employment records for William Younger, Kenny Allen, and Gerald Noll. For the 

reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion 

in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges claims of disability discrimination, race 

discrimination, and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 and 1981. These 

claims relate to fitness for duty evaluations performed and, ultimately, Plaintiff not 

being allowed to return to work with Defendant after completion of a fitness-forduty evaluation. As alleged, Defendant implemented a new policy related to 

fitness-for-duty evaluations in 2014. Filing No. 1. According to the Complaint, 

Plaintiff’s manager, Kenny Allen (“Allen”), referred Plaintiff for a fitness-for-duty 

evaluation in May 2017 and Plaintiff’s manager, William Younger (“Younger”), 

referred Plaintiff for another fitness-for-duty evaluation in February 2019. Filing No. 

1 at pp. 8-9. Thereafter, in May 2019, Younger performed another fitness-for-duty 

evaluation on Plaintiff. Filing No. 1 at 9-10. 

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 352
2

Plaintiff now argues documents produced in discovery indicate that another 

manager, Gerald Noll (“Noll”), directed Younger to remove Plaintiff from his job 

and, further, that Noll and Younger conducted at least one of Plaintiff’s fitness-forduty evaluations contrary to Defendant’s policies. Relevant to the dispute at hand, 

Plaintiff contends he was referred to these fitness-for-duty evaluations not due to 

Defendant’s concerns about his health and ability to perform his job functions, but

because he filed an EEOC complaint of discrimination that resulted in the demotion 

or termination of certain managers. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Plaintiff filed this 

EEOC complaint in 2015. Filing No. 1 at p. 8.

The Court held a discovery conference with the parties regarding several

issues on March 12, 2024. At that conference, the Court set a March 28, 2024 

deadline for the parties to file motions to compel regarding the discovery disputes 

addressed. Plaintiff timely filed a motion to compel regarding Requests for 

Production Nos. 26, 27, and 29. These three requests are identical, with the 

exception that each of these requests involve a different manager. The requests 

ask for the following information regarding Younger, Allen, and Noll (referred to 

collectively herein as “the Managers”):

All documents containing your records of [the Manager’s] 

employment with Defendant, including personnel file, 

performance reviews, and disciplinary records. This request 

includes, but is not limited to, all records of discrimination and 

other EEO complaints against [the Managers].

In response to each request, Defendant asserts the following:

Union Pacific objects as this request is overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, seeks documents that are not relevant, and seeks

confidential and personal information concerning an individual

who is not a party to this litigation. Disclosure of requested 

information could constitute an invasion of the fundamental 

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 2 of 8 - Page ID # 353
3

constitutional privacy rights of the employee which substantially 

outweighs any relevance to Plaintiff’s claims.

Filing No. 44-2 pp. 3-4.

During the discovery dispute conference, Plaintiff limited the timeframe for 

Requests 26, 27, and 29 to the time Plaintiff was employed with Defendant. In 

addition, Plaintiff previously agreed, and reiterates in his brief, that he no longer 

requests the following information responsive to the Requests: (1) documents 

showing the Managers’ pay and (2) the medical files Defendant maintains for these 

Managers. Filing No. 43 at p. 5.

ANALYSIS

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 governs the scope of discoverable documents. Pursuant 

to Rule 26, the parties may obtain:

Discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at 

stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the 

importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Although relevance is broadly construed for discovery 

purposes, the proponent of the discovery must make “[s]ome threshold showing of 

relevance . . . before parties are required to open wide the doors of discovery and 

to produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear upon the issues 

in the case.” Prism Techs., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 284 F.R.D. 448, 449 (D. Neb. 

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 3 of 8 - Page ID # 354
4

2012) (quoting Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992)). Mere 

speculation that information might be useful will not suffice; litigants seeking to 

compel discovery must describe with a reasonable degree of specificity the 

information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case. Wilbur-Ellis 

Company LLC v. Gompert, 2022 WL 17736773 at *2 (D. Neb. Dec. 16, 2022)

(quoting Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir. 1972)).

First, it is worthwhile to note that, though Defendant objects on the basis that 

the request is unduly burdensome, it sets forth no argument or evidence regarding 

the alleged burden at issue, despite the narrowed scope addressed in the 

discovery conference. V&B Props. LLC v. Atlantic States Ins. Co., 2024 WL 

1908100, at *4 (D. Neb. May 1, 2024) (citing Jones v. McNeese, No. 4:09CV3264, 

2010 WL 4024755, at *2 (D. Neb. Oct. 13, 2010) (remaining citations omitted)). As 

such, the overbreadth objection will not be considered when reaching the 

conclusions set forth in this order.

Defendant next objects that the requests are overly broad. As written, the

Court agrees because the requests at issue set forth no timeframe whatsoever.1

1 The Court’s case management practices provide:

Note: In most cases, if a formal discovery motion is necessary because the moving 

party is demanding a full response to the discovery request as drafted, the 

magistrate judge will enter a ruling based on the language of that discovery 

request; that is, the court’s formal motion ruling will likely not tailor or re-draft the 

moving party’s discovery request to comply with the federal rules and the 

mandated proportionality under those rules. Rather, the court will overrule or 

sustain the objections to the discovery request as written and presented to the 

magistrate judge.

As such, this Court could deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel, with regard to these requests 

in full. However, given discussions on the record during the discovery conference 

regarding a narrowed timeframe, the Court will consider whether there are portions of this 

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 4 of 8 - Page ID # 355
5

But time limitations were discussed during the discovery dispute conference and

Plaintiff narrowed his requests to the time in which he was employed with 

Defendant (September 2012 to February 2019). Filing No. 1 ¶¶ 30, 32. Defendant, 

however, took issue with this timeframe, arguing this narrowed timeframe was still 

too broad because the only EEOC charge at issue in this case was filed in 2019.

Filing No. 35. Additionally, Defendant contends any documentation beyond what it 

has already provided is irrelevant. The Court considers the two objections together.

Plaintiff argues the requests may, among other things: “reveal that other 

employees made race or retaliation complaints against these managers”; 

“employment records could reveal a particularly close relationship between 

Younger, Allen, or Noll, and a manager Seals named in his EEOC charge” which 

would “provide a potential motive for retaliating against Seals for filing his charge.”

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that beginning in 2014, Defendant implemented 

changes to its “Fitness for Duty” program and medical rules. It is pursuant to this 

policy that Plaintiff alleges the aforementioned fitness-for-duty evaluations were 

performed on him. Plaintiff’s Complaint also alleges that in approximately 2015, 

Plaintiff filed an EEOC complaint which resulted in several managers being fired 

or demoted. Filing No. 1, p. 8. 

Given the allegations, the Court finds that documents from 2014, the time in 

which Defendant implemented the changes to the program at issue, until 2019, 

when Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant ended, are relevant to the claims at

request to which Defendant shall respond. See Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Gompert, No. 

8:21CV340, 2023 WL 6038022, at *1 (D. Neb. Sept. 15, 2023) (citing Pavlik v. Cargill, 

Inc., 9 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 1993)) (providing that District Courts have broad discretion 

to limit discovery and decide discovery motions).

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 5 of 8 - Page ID # 356
6

issue. More specifically, documents within this time frame would, among other 

items: (1) provide a set of circumstances under which the Managers either did or 

did not perform evaluations pursuant to the new company policy with a 

discriminatory motivation; and (2) provide documents in which Plaintiff could 

potentially determine whether any of the Managers had a relationship with an 

individual affected by Plaintiff’s 2015 EEOC complaint (i.e. through supervisory 

evaluations, positive references in evaluations, etc.).

Defendant next objects contending the requests seek confidential and 

personal information of the Managers. First, it is worthwhile to note that a 

Protective Order has been entered in this matter which covers the documents 

contemplated. The Court finds the Protective Order mitigates many of Defendant’s

concerns. Filing No. 13, ¶ 2(b). Second, Plaintiff has clarified that they are not 

requesting wage or medical records (despite the scope of the original request),

eliminating what the undersigned can only assume are the most confidential and 

personal documents set forth in the requested documents.

In support of its argument, Defendant cites Raddatz v. Standard Register 

Co., 177 F.R.D. 446, 447 (D.Minn. Nov. 24, 1997) and that court’s proposition that 

“[a]t a minimum, before a Court compels the production of non-party personnel 

files it should first be satisfied that the information in those files is, indeed, relevant.”

Unlike the plaintiff in Raddatz, however, Plaintiff is not requesting the personnel 

files of hundreds of employees. He is only requesting employment information 

regarding three of his direct managers. Moreover, as previously set forth, there is 

a scope of documents that are, in fact, relevant to the claims at issue.

Instead, the undersigned concludes the request at issue is more comparable

to that presented to this Court in Bailey v. City of Bellevue, Nebraska, 2020 WL 

5564947 (D. Neb. Sept. 23, 2020), especially when each of the Managers were 

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 6 of 8 - Page ID # 357
7

involved with at least one of Plaintiff’s fitness-for-duty evaluations. In Bailey, which 

also dealt with allegations of discrimination, this Court ordered the disclosure of

portions of the “personnel and other employment files relating to [] performance 

and/or disciplinary actions” of the plaintiff’s supervisor.

Like the documents this Court ordered to be produced in Bailey, there are 

portions of the Managers’ employment files that are relevant to the claims at issue. 

Though the topic of what Defendants’ employment files encompasses was 

addressed during the discovery dispute conference, it was not addressed in the 

briefing by either party. Given this, the Court will set forth the categories of 

documents Defendant should produce, should such documents exist:

- Any and all informal or formal complaints by Plaintiff or any other employee 

of Defendant made against any of the Managers related to race 

discrimination or retaliation for the timeframe of 2014 to February 28, 2019;

- Any and all disciplinary actions taken by Defendant against any of the 

Managers related to race discrimination or retaliation for the timeframe of 

2014 to February 28, 2019; and

- Any and all performance reviews and/or evaluations of the Managers for the 

timeframe of 2014 to February 28, 2019.

Defendant may redact any information regarding pay, banking, or medical 

information of the Managers when producing such documents.

In his reply brief, Plaintiff raises an issue not previously brought before this 

Court in the discovery dispute conference, namely, certain redactions set forth in 

documents recently produced by Defendant. The Court notes that, at this time, it 

does not appear the parties have conferred on this issue in good faith nor has the 

Court held a discovery dispute conference. As such, the issue is not ripe for 

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 7 of 8 - Page ID # 358
8

disposition before the Court and the Court will decline to rule on it at this time. See

NECivR7.1(j).

Accordingly, Defendant is ordered to produce the above-referenced 

information, which is responsive to Requests Nos. 26, 27, and 29, by May 28, 

2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cv-03079-SMB-JMD Doc # 62 Filed: 05/14/24 Page 8 of 8 - Page ID # 359