Summary
This order addresses Dr. Rodney M. Samuelson’s motion to compel discovery in his Americans with Disabilities Act action against Monument Health, Inc. and Monument Health Rapid City Hospital, Inc. The court grants the motion in part, requiring responses to certain interrogatories and limiting one interrogatory to similarly situated physicians and advanced care providers at the Rapid City facility. The court also denies the request for attorney’s fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Monument's objections to interrogatories 2, 3, and 4 were sufficiently specific and whether the requested information was relevant and proportional under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
- Whether discovery concerning other employees' ADA accommodation requests should be limited to physicians or advanced care providers working at Monument Health Rapid City during the five years preceding Samuelson's termination.
- Whether Monument was required to produce documents responsive to RFP 6 subject to the same limitations as interrogatory 2.
- Whether Monument's response to RFP 2 required supplementation based only on Samuelson's suspicion that additional documents existed.
- Whether Monument's responses to the specified requests for admission complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4).
- Whether Samuelson was entitled to attorney's fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).
Holdings
- Objections that discovery is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, or disproportionate are insufficient when asserted only as boilerplate; the responding party must specifically explain the basis for each objection.
- Discovery concerning other employees' ADA accommodation requests may be limited to employees similarly situated to the plaintiff; here, the appropriate limitation was physicians or other advanced care providers who worked at Monument Health Rapid City, submitted an ADA accommodation request, and did so within five years before Samuelson's termination.
- Monument must answer interrogatory 3 seeking meetings involving employees' attorneys because the request is relevant to Samuelson's claim that he was discriminated against by being denied an attorney during ADA-related meetings and is not shown to be unduly burdensome or disproportionate.
- Monument must provide the dates, names, and communications requested in interrogatory 4 concerning whether it would request a report from Cleve Trimble because the information could lead to admissible evidence regarding the reasons for Monument's decision.
- The court denied the motion to compel supplementation of RFP 2 because Samuelson offered only suspicion or a hunch that Monument possessed additional responsive documents.
- Monument's denials and qualified responses to RFAs 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 22, and 23 were sufficient under Rule 36(a)(4), and the court declined to deem those matters admitted.
- RFA 18 was deemed admitted because Monument's supplemental response admitted that the July 7, 2021 morbidity-and-mortality conference occurred after the referenced anonymous complaint, which established the temporal fact requested.
- Samuelson was not entitled to attorney's fees because Monument's positions were substantially justified and reasonable minds could differ regarding the disputed discovery.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, the court finds that Monument’s objections to interrogatory nos. 2, 3, and 4—that the discovery requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case—are overruled.” (Discussion § B.1.a)
“Based on the foregoing facts, law and analysis, this magistrate judge grants in part and denies in part Dr. Samuelson’s motion to compel:” (Conclusion)
“Deny Dr. Samuelson’s request for attorney’s fees.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Samuelson was employed by Monument as a neurosurgeon and alleges that Monument regarded him as disabled because of a traumatic brain injury and failed to accommodate him under the ADA. He requested accommodations including changes to meetings, workload, staffing, and the presence of an advocate or attorney during the interactive process. Monument later terminated his employment after an investigation into emails containing protected health information. The discovery dispute concerned comparator accommodation requests, meetings involving employees' attorneys, communications about a report from a former consultant, and the sufficiency of Monument's responses to requests for admission.
Procedural history
Samuelson brought federal ADA claims against Monument arising from his employment and termination. After serving discovery and conducting a meet-and-confer, Samuelson moved to compel further responses. The magistrate judge granted the motion in part, denied it in part, deemed one request for admission admitted, and denied attorney's fees.