United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Gossett, III United States Magistrate Judge.
matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Compel Answers
to Written Discovery (Filing No. 49) filed by
Defendant, Charles Drew Health Center, Inc., and the Motion
to Compel Written Discovery (Filing No. 50) and
Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition (Filing No.
53) filed by Plaintiff, Monique Tolston.
action concerns Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant
terminated her employment in violation of federal and state
laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex and retaliation.
Plaintiff also seeks unpaid wages under the Nebraska Wage
Payment and Collections Act.
worked as a family practice physician for Defendant from 2008
until her termination on August 7, 2015. Plaintiff alleges
that in November 2014, she reported an unlawful medical
practice to Defendant's Medical Director, Gregory Ochuba,
and as a result, in December 2014, she was reprimanded for
her report and received a performance evaluation rating her
performance below satisfactory in several categories.
(Filing No. 12 at pp. 3-5). Plaintiff alleges in
August 2015 she was terminated without notice in
contravention of her employment agreement. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant's proffered reasons for her termination,
including tardiness, unexcused absences, history of failure
to participate in mandatory meetings, unacceptable and
unprofessional behavior, failure to meet productivity goals,
and patient complaints, were pretext for gender
discrimination and retaliation. (Filing No. 51-4;
Filing No. 51-5 at p. 3).
parties have filed the instant motions to compel disclosure
of certain written discovery and further depositions.
Defendant represents to the Court that it filed its motion to
preserve its rights; Defendant states that Plaintiff's
counsel previously agreed to produce certain supplemental
answers to interrogatories and production of documents, but
has not yet done so. (Filing No. 49). Plaintiff did
not oppose Defendant's motion and requests an additional
14-days to produce any additional responsive documents.
(Filing No. 72). Therefore, the Court will grant
Defendant's Motion and order Plaintiff to supplement the
outstanding discovery requests within 14-days of this order,
assuming she has not already done so.
before the Court are Plaintiff's discovery motions.
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to answer
interrogatories and respond to requests for production of
documents regarding any disciplinary action, tardiness,
patient and staff complaints, and other performance
evaluation information for other physicians employed by
Defendant. (Filing No. 50; Filing No. 56 at p.
3). Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling an
additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant because the
deponents were unprepared to answer the majority of topics
noticed by Plaintiff. (Filing No. 53).
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Written Discovery
seeks an order compelling the Defendant to answer
Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11, and respond to Request for
Production of Document Nos. 21, 24, 37 and 38. (Filing
Nos. 10 and 11 ask Defendant to “set forth in detail
all patient and staff complaints regarding any current or
former physician of the Defendant from through the
present, ” and to list all investigations and actions
taken in response to those complaints. (Filing No.
51-1). Plaintiffs Request for Production No s. 37 and 38
seek the documents related to those patient and staff
complaints and investigations taken in response. (Filing Nos.
response to Plaintiffs interrogatories, subject to
objections, Defendant referenced Plaintiff to documents
previously produced to Plaintiff, and stated that such
complaints “were investigated pursuant to the policies
and procedures” in Defendant's policy manual, which
was also provided to Plaintiff. (Filing No. 51-1 at pp.
2-3). Similarly, Defendant represents it already
produced relevant information regarding patient and staff
complaints and investigations of those complaints in response
to Request Nos. 37 and 38. (Filing No. 68 at p. 3,
7). Defendant represents that the documents produced are all
the documents in its possession, control, or custody found
after conducting a reasonably diligent search. (Filing
No. 68 at p. 3). Having reviewed the matter, the Court
finds no reason to doubt Defendant's representation that
it fully answered these interrogatories by its previous
disclosures of documents. Therefore the Court will deny
Plaintiff's motion to compel further answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11, and Request for Production Nos.
37 and 38.
also seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce documents
responsive to the following Requests for Production of
• Copies of employment/personnel files of physicians
employed by Defendant between 2010 and August 2015, excluding
information related to disability, physical health, and