Discovery, Specific Cases
Davis v. Precoat- Charged that racially and insulting derogatory comments abounded (hostile environment).
- Document request for complaints alleging race/national origin discrimination filed by other employees at same plant.
- Discovery always filled with duplication/redundancy (to make sure nothing falls between cracks).
- Defendant did not turn over documents.
- Plaintiffs filed a "motion to compel" with the court.
- Courts get dragged into it when parties can't work it out.
- Discovery mostly left to parties to implement, presume good faith (that is often not there!).
- Rules work only if both sides have minimum commitment to making them work, otherwise extremely inefficient to constantly have to run to court with motions to compel.
- Courts are reluctant to come down too hard in discovery, want parties to work it out because the court isn't involved from beginning.
- Appealing a "Motion to Compel"
- Motion to Compel NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT
- Thus, can't appeal until end of case.
- Might be able to appeal if they lose case on various grounds, including this one.
- But will be hard to show prejudice on this issue (that they wouldn't have lost BUT FOR this ruling).
- If it didn't cost the defendant, appeals court doesn't care about fixing it.
- SO—for the most part, discovery means what district courts and magistrates say it means—but most issues NEVER GO TO COURT.
- Also note: standard of review is "abuse of discretion," not "de novo."
- Want access to other complaints involving similar discrimination—how do these other allegations fit into plaintiff’s case? Why are such allegations by non-parties relevant to the claims of these plaintiffs?
- Relevant to demonstrating pattern/practice of discrimination. The more people who allege unfair treatment, the harder it is for defendant to blame plaintiffs. See Yeazell, p. 410.
- Relevance depends on a presumption that if you discriminate against one person, more likely to discriminate against another person—what is relevant depends on what we think motivates human behavior.
Steffan v. Cheney- Relevance also turns on substantive law.
- Steffan resigned from Academy after recommendation of discharge, sues saying improperly dismissed him from school due to homosexual orientation.
- That alone is not a Constitutional basis for exclusion from Academy (since it is solely due to mindset, statements, admissions).
- Policy at time based on orientation, not conduct.
- Constructive discharge—due to resignation vs. firing—functional equivalent of firing.
- District court dismissed (with Rule 37 sanction) claim due to failure to answer/cooperate with discovery.
- Steffan invokes 5th Amendment.
- Note that even in civil case, can invoke 5th Amendment privilege if testimony can be used against you in another, criminal setting.
- Not used very often because in a civil case trial lawyers can tell jury and they can draw inferences (unlike criminal cases).
- Assuming arguendo that Steffan’s theory applies only to policy that boots people based on statements ("who-he-is"), not conduct.
- Limited to grounds used by government to take action, not what they could do (or ever be able to on another reason later)—past actions, not potential future actions.
- Think about question "did you ever break curfew"? (Grounds for booting, but CLEARLY not relevant.)
- Shows limits of relevancy.