United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
P. HART, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action, Ricky Ramdeen has sued Trihop 69th Street, LLC d/b/a
IHOP (“Trihop 69th Street”), for his termination
after two days of training as a host in its pancake
restaurant, alleging discrimination, retaliation and a
failure to accommodate, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§
12101 et seq., and relevant state law.
in this case closed on January 30, 2017. Ramdeen has now
filed a motion to compel certain discovery responses, to
which Trihop 69th Street has responded. For the reasons that
follow, Ramdeen's motion will be granted as specified
certain limits which are not implicated here, parties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ.
Pr. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible at
trial, if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. A party
has a duty to supplement or correct its disclosure or
response in a timely matter, or as ordered by the court. Fed.
R. Civ. Pr. 26(e). The party seeking discovery may move for
an order compelling an answer or production, or where the
response is incomplete. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 37(a)(3) and (4).
Document Request No. 20
or jury's willingness to award actual damages, punitive
damages or liquidated damages is often impacted by the size
of the employer (as are damage caps under certain laws).
Please provide documents reflecting the following
(a) All documents reflecting exactly how many employees
worked for Defendant(s) during each of the last 3 calendar
years on a part-time or full-time basis; and
(b) Payroll documentation reflecting all employees employed
within the last 3 years for Defendant(s).
[If Defendant(s) has employed more than 500 employees for
each of the last 3 calendar years, Defendant(s) need not
provide any requested documents herein in Defendant(s) would
prefer to provide a sworn affidavit to this effect in lieu of
documentation from a high-level manage authorized to affirm
such information (with details specifying such
69th Street concedes that Ramdeen is entitled to “the
best estimate” of the number of employees “during
the relevant time period.” It asks for an additional
two weeks within which to supply “the best available
information regarding the number of employees at this
restaurant in August and September of 2015 and for the time
since.” It has not, however, explained its basis for
refusing to offer information for the full three years, as
requested. Nor has it explained why it has not provided this
information before the close of discovery.
the material requested is clearly relevant, and because
Trihop 69th Street has not made any argument as to why the
scope of the request should be limited, Ramdeen's motion
will be granted. Within two weeks of the date of the
accompanying Order, Trihop 69th Street shall provide the
requested material regarding the full three years; any claim
that such material (or some part of it) does not exist, or is
unavailable, should be set forth in a written ...