United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANSONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Hilda van Hoek moves to compel Defendant McKesson
Medical-Surgical Inc. (McKesson) to produce documents
responsive to her second request for production. (Doc. 115).
Hoek alleges sex discrimination in compensation, terms, and
privileges of employment and retaliation by her employer.
(Doc. 21). Van Hoek served McKesson with her second request
for production on June 11, 2019. (Doc. 115, p. 1). McKesson
responded on August 2, 2019. (Id.). On the day of
the discovery deadline, August 23, 2019, van Hoek moved to
compel documents responsive to her second request for
production nos. 4, 10, 11, and 12. (See Doc. 104).
McKesson opposes the motion. (Doc. 124).
may obtain discovery about any nonprivileged matter relevant
to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is meant
to assist parties in ascertaining facts that bear on issues
in the case. ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota,
859 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).
That said, requests for production should be clear, concise,
and reasonably particularized. Middle District Discovery
(2015) at III(A)(1).
may move for an order compelling discovery from the opposing
party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). The party moving to compel
discovery has the initial burden of proving that the
requested discovery is relevant. Douglas v. Kohl's
Dep't. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1185-Orl-22TBS, at
*2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quotation and citation
omitted). The responding party must then specifically
demonstrate how the requested discovery is unreasonable or
unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v.
Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1985).
Request for Production No. 4
for production no. 4 seeks “[d]ocuments showing
[McKesson's] net worth in 2018 and, when available,
Documents showing [McKesson's] net worth in 2019.”
(Doc. 115, p. 2). McKesson raised several objections
including that the request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
and premature. (Id.).
damages are available in employment discrimination cases for
egregious conduct. Dudley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
166 F.3d 1317, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 1999). If the plaintiff has
pleaded punitive damages in the complaint, the
defendant's financial worth may be reasonably calculated
to support the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages and
may be obtained during discovery. See E.E.O.C. v. DiMare
Ruskin, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-158-FTM-36, 2011 WL 3715067,
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2011) (stating
“defendant's financial worth may be discoverable if
plaintiff has pleaded punitive damages under an ADA
claim”); Soliday v. 7-Eleven,
2:09-cv-807-FtM-29SPC, 2010 WL 3928586, *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct.4,
2010) (holding discovery of net worth is permitted when
punitive damages are sought in an employment discrimination
suit); Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v. Humana,
Inc., No. 08-20424-CIV, 2008 WL 45500258, *4 (S.D. Fla.
Oct. 3, 2009) (finding production of net worth appropriate
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26).
Hoek pleaded a request for punitive damages and is entitled
to discovery of McKesson's financial worth. However, as
drafted, request for production no. 4 is overbroad because it
does not identify the document sought. There are likely
numerous documents containing this information. Because the
request is overbroad, the parties must further meet and
confer to reach an agreement on a narrow set of clearly
identifiable documents that substantially disclose
McKesson's current financial health. A review of the
investor portion of McKesson's website indicates that a
large volume of financial information is already publicly
available and easily accessible.
Request for Production Nos. 11, 12, and 13
for production nos. 10, 11, and 12 seek W-2 forms for Craig
Williams, Clinton Brady, and Todd Anderson for 2012, 2014,
2018, and any later year while this case is pending. (Doc.
115, pp. 3-6). Van Hoek argues these documents are necessary
to complete her damages computations. (Id.).
Hoek's allegations of discrimination are specific to
certain accounts. (Doc. 21). Van Hoek alleges she was forced
to share a portion of one account with Williams, as well as a
portion of two accounts with Brady. (Id.). Williams
testified he has around 300 accounts. (Doc. 124, Ex. A).
Brady testified he has around 350 to 400 accounts.
(Id.). Documents evidencing Williams's and
Brady's total compensation would not assist in damages