Opinion ID: 44744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of Discovery

Text: Jerome also argues that he was denied adequate discovery in this case because, even though he submitted the appropriate discovery requests, Crestline failed to answer or fully comply with them.3 He points out that, during a telephonic hearing on April 26, 2005 before the magistrate judge, Crestline promised that it would release discovery.4 We review a district court’s decision on discovery issues for abuse of discretion. Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 1999). A district court’s decisions regarding discovery may only be disturbed upon a showing of substantial harm to the party seeking relief. Edward Leasing Corp. v. 3 Jerome also identifies, in his brief, several instances of misconduct on the part of Crestline. To the extent that Jerome’s allegations are relevant to the instant case, none of them have evidentiary support in the record. 4 Jerome also appears to argue, for the first time on appeal, that the magistrate exhibited bias toward Crestline when she denied Jerome’s discovery motions. Jerome offers only conclusory arguments that the magistrate was biased in favor of Crestline, and, therefore, recusal was not required because the alleged bias was based only on unsupported speculation. See United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556, 1558 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that “a judge, having been assigned to a case, should not recuse himself on unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation”). 7 Uhlig & Assocs., Inc., 785 F.2d 877, 881 (11th Cir. 1986). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). “[A] district court can deny a motion to compel further discovery if it concludes that the questions are irrelevant.” Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 732 (11th Cir.1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Jerome was provided with adequate opportunities for discovery. Although the district court did deny Jerome’s request to discover the personnel files of certain Crestline employees, this evidence was irrelevant to his failure to promote claim as none of the employees had applied for the Assistant General Manager position. Even his request for potentially relevant evidence, such as his own and Schultz’s personnel files, were properly denied when Jerome refused to comply with Crestline’s conditions for producing this sensitive information. Moreover, Jerome has failed to identify any substantial harm brought about by the unavailability of the evidence he seeks. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 8