Opinion ID: 205955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Suit against Merck

Text: Baltodano filed a diversity suit against Merck and Vazquez in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. He alleged violations of Puerto Rico Law 100 (employment discrimination), Article II § 8 of the Puerto Rico Constitution (essentially defamation), and Puerto Rico Law 80 (termination without just cause), as well as violations of two Puerto Rico Civil Code provisions  essentially, a breach of contract claim and a defamation claim. Procedural history is important here, so we will dwell on it a bit longer than usual, beginning mid-discovery. On May 29, 2008, while deposing Vazquez, counsel for Baltodano asked whether Vazquez had disciplined other managers for the same misconduct that had been the basis for her warnings and firing of Baltodano. [3] Vazquez said she could not remember. The same day, Baltodano requested this information from Merck. Merck objected. Only after Merck had filed a motion for summary judgment did it agree to describe the disciplinary actions (verbal, written, warnings), if any, ... taken by [Merck] as to [other] business managers for failure to submit expense reports or follow scheduling for product certification. Given this agreement, Baltodano filed a Rule 56(f) motion, requesting only that the court delay ruling on the summary judgment motion and that it allow Baltodano to supplement his brief once Merck provided the promised information. The court never acted on this motion, and Merck repeatedly and unilaterally pushed back the date that, it said, it would finally comply with the agreement. Merck never provided the promised information. On August 11, 2008, Baltodano filed a motion to compel or, in the alternative, to follow Rule 16(5) of the Puerto Rico Rules of Evidence and hold that Merck's non-production created a presumption adverse to Merck: that no other managers were disciplined for misconduct comparable to Baltodano's. On August 15, Merck renewed its objection and again refused to provide the information, responding vaguely that some business managers may have failed [to] comply with certification scheduling due dates; if such were the case, generally, each situation is managed individually. Merck added that there was no other situation quite like Baltodano's, and that a litany of supervisors could not recall whether any other business managers might have committed misconduct. Following this non-responsive answer, Baltodano sought an extension of time to file a sur-reply to the summary judgment motion and, in short order, filed the surreply renewing his argument under Rule 16(5). Eventually, the court denied Baltodano's motion to compel without comment and then granted Merck's motion for summary judgment. Baltodano filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court promptly denied. Baltodano appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.