United States District Court, D. Maryland
Lipton Hollander United States District Judge
Memorandum addresses the “Objections In Part to the
Magistrate Judge's January 9, 2018 Order” (ECF 56,
the “Objection”), lodged by plaintiff Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) as to
a discovery Order issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephanie
Gallagher. See ECF 55 (“Order of January 9,
2018”). Defendant Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co.
(“M&T”) has not filed a response
(see Docket), and the time to do so has expired.
See Local Rule 105.2.a.
hearing is necessary to resolve the Objection. See
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny
Factual and Procedural Background
EEOC has sued M&T (ECF 1, “Complaint”) under
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”), codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C.
§ 1211(a), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, codified,
as amended, at 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The EEOC alleges that
M&T unlawfully discriminated against Candace McCollin, a
former employee of M&T, by failing to provide her with
reasonable accommodations and by terminating her employment.
Order of October 27, 2017 (ECF 41), this Court resolved
certain discovery disputes. See ECF 36; ECF 38; ECF
39; ECF 40. In relevant part, I ruled that M&T
“shall produce all 2012 performance appraisals and all
2012 disciplinary records for all of its successful internal
applicants with respect to any position for which plaintiff
applied, as well as for the Ingleside branch manager
position, ” which was a position for which McCollin had
expressed interest but for which she did not apply. ECF 41 at
1, § 1; see also ECF 39 at 2 n.3 (describing
the Ingleside branch manager position).
Joint Status Report of December 15, 2017 (ECF 46), the
parties notified the Court of additional discovery disputes.
By Order of that same date (ECF 47), I instructed the
parties, inter alia, to submit letters to the Court
regarding the dispute, which they did on January 3, 2018.
See ECF 50 (EEOC Letter); ECF 50-1 at 1-25 (EEOC
exhibits); ECF 49 (M&T Letter). In particular, the EEOC
sought (1) documents pursuant to Item 12 in its Request for
Production of Documents (“RPD”); and (2)
designation by M&T of a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
representative to testify as to Topic No. 9 of the Rule
30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (“Notice”), served on
August 21, 2017. ECF 50; see also ECF 55; ECF 50-1
at 2-4 (excerpt from the Notice).
No. 9 of the Notice asked M&T to designate a corporate
representative to testify as to the positions in the Greater
Baltimore region of Branch Manager; Assistant Branch Manager;
M&T at Work Specialist; and Enhanced Due Diligence
Investigator, including information pertaining to (1) the
number of vacant positions; (2) the number of positions
filled; (3) the identities of the individuals selected for
the positions; (4) the qualifications of the individuals
selected; (5) whether the individuals were internal
applicants; and (6) the M&T employees who were involved
in the selection process. See ECF 50-1 at 3-4.
Order of January 4, 2018 (ECF 51), I referred all discovery
disputes to Judge Gallagher. On January 9, 2018, Judge
Gallagher convened a telephone conference with the parties.
See ECF 55 at 1. Her Order of January 9, 2018 (ECF
Order, Judge Gallagher granted the EEOC's request to
compel production as to RPD Item 12. Id. at 2. There
is no challenge to that portion of the Order. See
ECF 56. As to the designation of a corporate designee, Judge
Gallagher granted “the EEOC's request to compel
M&T to designate an employee to appear for
deposition.” Id. at 3. However, Judge
Gallagher concluded that “the designee need only
testify as to the information sought in Topic No. 9 regarding
positions to which Ms. McCollin applied” and for which
she had expressed interest. Id. As discussed below,
the EEOC objects to this portion of the Order. See
August 21, 2017, the EEOC served its Rule 30(b)(6) Notice on
M&T, seeking, inter alia, testimony about
individuals who were selected to fill vacant positions for
which McCollin was qualified in the Baltimore region, from
August 1, 2013, to the present. See ECF 50 at 1. The
parties do not cite an objection by M&T. However, by
letter of January 3, 2018 (ECF 50), the EEOC complained to
the Court that M&T had improperly objected to the
designation of a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate witness to testify
as to Topic No. 9. Id. at 1-2. Further, it argued
that M&T “should be compelled to produce a
corporate representative to testify as to Topic No. 9.”
ECF 50 at 1.
No. 9 states, ECF 50-1 at 3-4:
Branch Manager, Assistant Branch Manager, M&T at Work
Specialist, Enhanced Due Diligence Investigator positions in
the Greater Baltimore region, for the ...