defendants’ written discovery requests,” respectively, but cautioned that testimony should be focused on confirming information or clarifying ambiguities. The court granted the EEOC ’ s motion as to Topic 13, which sought the names of all individuals with personal knowledge of the allegations in the complaint, on the basis that the Commission ’ s initial disclosures and responses to discovery requests should contain such information. Finally, the court assessed Topic 19, which sought testimony on “any and all steps in [the EEOC ’ s] investigation of the claims asserted in its complaint.” The Magistrate Judge dismissed EEOC ’ s arguments that the topic was irrelevant, and granted the motion as to Topic 19 as well. The Commission filed objections to the Magistrate Judge ’ s ruling per Rule 72, and the court adjudicated those objections in EEOC v. Sunshine Raisin Corp., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205959 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023). The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The court denied the EEOC ’ s motion as to the majority of categories including 1-6 and 10-12, 14, and 19. The court granted the EEOC ’ s motion as to categories 15, 16, and 18 of the deposition notice. Topics 15 and 16 was aimed at discovery about the information in the EEOC ’ s disclosures (Topic 15) and the documents produced pursuant to Rule 26 and the defendants’ discovery requests (Topic 16). The court noted that the Magistrate Judge granted the deposition as to these categories solely on the basis that the EEOC did not object to the deposition in principle regarding Topic 15. However, as to Topic 16, the court determined that the EEOC stated it would meet and confer on this topic but the defendants refused to identify areas in which the initial disclosures or documents were illegible or ambiguous, and because the EEOC provided a basis for objecting to these categories, the court held that the Magistrate Judge ’ s order was contrary to law. With regard to Topic 18 (which sought information about the EEOC ’ s internal policies and procedures regarding how it investigated claims by its own employees of sexual harassment), the court permitted the defendants’ deposition as to Topics 1-6 and 10-12, which sought information supporting the factual bases for the allegations made in the complaint. The court also affirmed the propriety of discovery as to Topic 14, which sought the identification of potential claimants and the basis for the EEOC ’ s claim of representation, and Topic 19, which sought information regarding all steps taken by the EEOC in investigating the claims asserted in in the EEOC ’ s complaint. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the EEOC ’ s motion for reconsideration. The EEOC was successful in compelling responses to discovery in EEOC v. Above All Odds, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108679 (D. Md. June 21, 2023), where the EEOC filed an action alleging that the defendant, an outpatient psychiatric clinic, subjected employees to sexual harassment, retaliation and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court granted the EEOC ’ s motion to compel responses from the defendant ’ s top executives. Subsequently, one of the executives responded, and one, Raymond Dorsey, failed to do so. The court thereby found Dorsey in contempt of court. The court ruled that Dorsey failed to comply with any of the court ’ s orders or respond to the EEOC ’ s applications to show cause despite multiple orders directing him to do so. The court ordered an arrest warrant be issued for Dorsey and held in abeyance until July 20, 2023. The court ruled that if Dorsey responded to the EEOC ’ s discovery requests the stay would be granted indefinitely.
31
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
The EEOC Litigation Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online