1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC., 

 

 Defendant. 

Consolidated with: 

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02137-MSK-MEH 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

WENDY J. CABREARA, 

 Intervenor-Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC., 

 Defendant. 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S ORDERS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission’s (EEOC) Objections (#107, 138) to the Magistrate Judge’s Orders (#102, 122)

granting in part and denying in part two Motions to Compel (#55, 84) by the EEOC. The 

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 313 Filed 02/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2 

Defendant, the Original HoneyBaked Ham Company of Georgia (HBH), filed Responses (#110, 

148), and the EEOC replied (#120, 170). 

I. Jurisdiction 

The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

II. Background 

The EEOC brings this action under Title VII, asserting claims of sex discrimination and 

retaliation. As filed, the Amended Complaint (#6) alleges that sexual harassment and retaliation 

permeated throughout District 8 and was committed by several managers and supervisors. 

At an initial scheduling conference, the Magistrate Judge set April 30, 2012 as a deadline 

by which the EEOC was to have identified each aggrieved individual for whom it seeks relief. 

 Throughout discovery, the EEOC sought district-wide and company-wide information. 

As pertinent here, the EEOC filed two Motions to Compel (#55, 84). In the first motion, the 

EEOC sought, among other things, a complete list of individuals that HBH employed in District 

8 from January 1, 2009 to the present. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part, but he 

limited discovery to only those HBH stores where the 18 aggrieved individuals (who were 

identified by April 30th) had worked. 

In its second motion, the EEOC sought discovery of (1) all employee complaints that 

were handled by Mr. Costello (a human resources representative who oversaw over 100 HBH 

stores), (2) all employee complaints made in any District 8 store, and (3) all documents related to 

those complaints. Again, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part. Relying on his earlier 

order, the Judge ruled that the EEOC was entitled to discovery of employee complaints and 

related documents, but only as to those stores where the 18 aggrieved individuals had worked. 

The EEOC objects to each of the Magistrate Judge’s rulings. 

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 313 Filed 02/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3 

III. Legal Standard 

When considering objections to nondispositve rulings by a Magistrate Judge, such as 

those at issue here, the Court must adopt the Magistrate Judge’s ruling unless it finds that the 

ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 

Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.3d 562, 566 (10th Cir. 1997). The clearly erroneous standard requires 

that the reviewing court affirm unless, on the entire evidence, it is left with the definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been committed. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 

1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988). The contrary to law standard permits plenary review as to matters 

of law. Reyes v. Snowcap Creamery, Inc. ̧ ___ F.Supp. 2d ___, WL 4888476 (D.Colo. 2012). 

Rule 26(b)(1) provides that parties may obtain discovery on any matter, not privileged, 

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, the 

Magistrate Judge has broad discretion over pretrial discovery matters that are referred to him. 

See Ariza v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 131, 134 (D.Colo. 1996). 

IV. Discussion 

The EEOC argues that the Magistrate Judge exceeded his authority under Rule 72 by 

limiting discovery to the 18 aggrieved individuals identified by April 30th and HBH stores where 

those individuals worked. It argues that by limiting discovery in this way, the Magistrate Judge 

excluded potential aggrieved individuals from participating in the lawsuit. 

At the time the EEOC filed its Objections, the Court had not yet ruled on HBH’s Motion 

to Dismiss (#42). Accordingly, the EEOC’s arguments relate to the need for information that 

would lead to the discovery of additional aggrieved individuals throughout District 8. Since that 

time, however, the Court ruled (#289) on HBH’s Motion to Dismiss and limited the scope of this 

lawsuit to claims of sex discrimination resulting from a hostile work environment created only 

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 313 Filed 02/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4 

by Mr. James Jackman and retaliation against victims who complained of his alleged sexual 

harassment. Thus, the EEOC’s claims are no longer district-wide, but are limited to where the 

alleged unlawful conduct by Mr. Jackman occurred. 

Here, discovery was permitted as to the 18 previously identified aggrieved individuals 

and the stores where they worked (up to six stores in District 8). The record shows, however, 

that Mr. Jackman worked at only three HBH stores in Colorado and that HBH disclosed 

information related to those stores, including the names of employees who had worked there 

during the relevant time period. Accordingly, the Court finds that the scope of discovery 

permitted was larger than, and encompassed, the scope of discoverable information that would 

be relevant to the remaining claims and defenses in this case. The Court therefore concludes 

that, despite any alleged error in the rulings, the parties have not been prejudiced, and it declines 

to modify the rulings. 

V. Conclusion 

For the forgoing reasons, the EEOC’s Objections (#s 107, 138) are OVERRULED and 

the Magistrate Judge’s Orders (#s 102, 122) are AFFIRMED. 

Dated this 4th day of February, 2013. 

BY THE COURT:

 

 Marcia S. Krieger 

 Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 313 Filed 02/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4