United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
COLIN H. LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a motion to compel discovery ("Motion to Compel") (DN 91) filed by Plaintiff Serge Adamov ("Plaintiff"). Defendant U.S. Bank National Association ("Defendant") filed a response (DN 94), and Plaintiff filed a reply. (DN 96.) This matter is now ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Vice President and District Manager of Defendant's Louisville, Kentucky office. Plaintiff approached his direct supervisor with concerns that he was being denied promotions based on his Azerbaijani national origin. Thereafter, Defendant opened an investigation into Plaintiff's banking activities. The investigation revealed that in 2007, Plaintiff made a personal loan to a college friend who was also a banking customer of Defendant. Defendant determined that employee loans to bank customers violated its ethics policy and terminated Plaintiff's employment effective August 31, 2009.
On September 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed suit in Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging that his termination violated the Kentucky Civil Rights Act in that it was motivated by either or both of: (1) his national origin; or (2) his complaints to supervisors about alleged national-origin discrimination. Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. On March 7, 2011, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claim on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's national origin discrimination claim, but, on August 23, 2012, granted summary judgment to Defendant as to that claim on the ground that Plaintiff failed to rebut Defendant's articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiff's termination - that Plaintiff violated the ethics policy. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Court on the motion to dismiss, holding that the Court should not have raised the issue of administrative exhaustion sua sponte. However, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's ruling on summary judgment. The case was, therefore, remanded on Plaintiff's retaliation claim.
B. Discovery Requests in Dispute
At issue now are certain discovery requests served by Plaintiff on Defendant on July 23, 2014 and August 26, 2014. (DN 91-3 ("First Discovery Requests"); DN 91-5 ("Second Discovery Requests").) Defendant responded to each set of discovery requests, objecting to some requests and responding substantively to others. (DN 91-4 ("First Discovery Responses"); DN 91-6 ("Second Discovery Responses").) In November and December 2014, counsel for the parties exchanged correspondence regarding Plaintiff's position that Defendant's responses were deficient and Defendant's position that its responses were adequate. (DN 91-7, 91-8, 91-9, 91-10.) Ultimately, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The contested discovery requests and responses at issue are reproduced below:
First Discovery Requests:
Interrogatory 11. For the time period of January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2010, with regard to all employees who were discovered to have made a loan, from their personal funds, to existing bank customers, state the following:
a) The name of the employee who made the loan.
b) The work location of the employee.
c) The date of the transaction.
d) The disciplinary or other response by the bank to the transaction.
e) Whether the bank considered mitigating factors in determining its response to the loan.
f) Whether the bank determined that its ethics policy had been breached.
g) The date of the ethics policy in force at the time of the incident.
h) The verbatim language of the policy regarding loans that was in force at the time.
(DN 91-3 at 4.)
Document Request 8. Each and every document referred to in the foregoing Interrogatories, or referred to or relied on in your responses thereto.
Second Discovery Requests:
Interrogatory 13.  For the time period January 1, 2007 until January 1, 2010 identify each and every employee of Defendant who was disciplined, terminated from employment, allowed or encouraged to resign, or otherwise separated from employment due, in whole or in part, to a violation of the policy or policies that Defendant alleges Plaintiff violated. For each individual so identified state their:
a) Name, address, and telephone number;
b) Position with defendant;
c) Date of separation from employment;
d) Whether the employee was disciplined, ...