United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Barry Fischer, United States District Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Interrogatories, (Docket No. ), and Defendant's
response in opposition, (Docket No. ). After careful
consideration of the parties' submissions and the general
standard governing motions to compel discovery, i.e., that
the moving party bears the initial burden to show the
relevance of the requested information and that it is
proportional to the needs of the case and once this initial
burden is met, the burden shifts to the party resisting
discovery to demonstrate the lack of relevance of the
requested documents or that responding to the discovery would
be unduly burdensome, etc., see Samuel, Son & Co. v.
Beach, No. 13-CV-128, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143549 (W.D.
Pa. Oct. 9, 2014), consistent with the current version of
Rule 26(b)(1),  Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Interrogatories  is DENIED.
holding, the Court notes that Plaintiff has asserted a claim
against Defendant for its alleged violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981. (Docket No. 18). The factual and procedural
background of this matter, which has been pending for over
two years, is set forth in detail in this Court's
Memorandum Order dated December 12, 2016. (Docket No. 98 at
1-4). In its Memorandum Order, the Court granted
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint and granted
Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery. (Id. at
7-8). In granting Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery,
the Court stated that “Defendant will not suffer any
prejudice because Plaintiff only seeks information regarding
African Americans who have reached full retirement and
benefits while working for Defendant. Plaintiff's limited
request should not constitute an undue burden to
Defendant.” (Id. at 6-7). The Court reopened
discovery “for the LIMITED purpose of permitting
Plaintiff to serve upon Defendant an interrogatory, i.e., a
written question as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33.” (Id. at 7 (emphasis in
original)). The Court further ordered that “no
further reopening of or extensions of discovery will be
granted in this matter.” (Id. at 8
(emphasis in original)).
motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant's responses
to the following nine interrogatories:
1. The drivers' seniority list showing hiring dates[, ]
including Richie Burkhart and all laborers [who] were
promoted to drivers.
2. Drivers['] and laborer[s'] drug test[s] for the
last 5 years[.]
3. All hiring and promotions prior to January 9, 2014[, ]
including airline services, laborers, and drivers.
4. The names and dates of hire of the airline services
employees promoted to Field Maintenance.
5. The fire department hires in the past ten years.
6. Provide the number of employees and minorities within the
7. Provide the number of employees and minorities within the
8. Bob Turner's date of hire, date retired[, ] and age at
9. Human resources provide hiring and promotions prior to
January 9, 2014[, ] including Cheryl Shaw's title and