Diane Seifert v. Eat’n Park Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio addressed three discovery-related motions in an employment discrimination action brought by Diane Seifert against Eat’n Park Hospitality Group, Inc. and Parkhurst Dining, LLC. The court ordered Plaintiff to provide specified earning statements and other discovery, awarded Defendants reasonable fees and costs associated with obtaining the remaining earning statements, and granted in part a protective order limiting certain Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics. The court denied sanctions on the second motion to compel because Defendants had not adequately demonstrated a good-faith meet-and-confer effort.

Holdings

1. Because plaintiff failed to provide the full set of earnings statements required by the court’s March 6, 2026 order, she was required to produce any additional earnings statements from January 2025 through December 27, 2025, in her possession within 10 days. Defendants were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing those remaining statements.
2. The request to compel the names of plaintiff’s healthcare providers was denied as moot, and sanctions were not warranted because the prior order required plaintiff to execute a healthcare authorization release but did not expressly require her to identify healthcare providers.
3. The protective order was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s questioning was limited for Topics 5, 13, 14, 16, and 18 as specified by the court, but Topics 7, 8, and 10 could include relevant corporate-level policies, procedures, rules, and training.
4. Defendants were entitled to the discovery specified in their second motion to compel, including amended interrogatory responses, verifications, identification of documents responsive to requests, and production of specified records and documents.
5. Defendants were not entitled to sanctions on the second motion to compel because the record did not establish that they had attempted in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s prior discovery order by not producing all required earnings statements and, if so, whether defendants were entitled to an order compelling production and reasonable fees and costs under Rule 37(b)(2)(C).
2. Whether defendants established good cause for a protective order limiting the subjects of plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to compel responses to specified interrogatories and document requests.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to sanctions or expenses on the second motion to compel when the record did not show a good-faith effort to confer as required by Rule 37.

Disposition

other