Discovery

• Author: Cathy Ventrell-Monsees
• Pages: 177-248

DISCOVERY

4-1

CHAPTER 4

DISCOVERY

I. OVERVIEW OF DISCOVERY STRATEGY

§4:10 Discovery of Facts to Prove a Prima Facie Case

§4:10.10 Obtaining Evidence of Disparate Treatment

§4:20 Discovery of Pretext Evidence

II. DOCUMENT REQUESTS

§4:30 Pre-Filing Discovery Request re ESI

§4:40 Make a Broad Request for Documents

§4:50 Documents to Request

§4:50.10 Documents Related to the Merits of the Claim or Defense

§4:50.20 Documents Related to Damages

§4:50.30 Documents To Be Used at Trial

III. INTERROGATORIES

§4:60 Generally

§4:60.10 Investigatory

§4:60.20 Contention

§4:60.30 Occurrence

§4:70 Topics for Plaintiff to Address with Interrogatories

§4:70.10 Records Custodians and Individuals with Knowledge

§4:70.20 Employer’s Claim or Defenses

§4:70.30 Damages and Fees

§4:70.40 Expert Witnesses

IV. REQUESTS TO ADMIT

§4:100 Generally

[§4:110 – 4:120 Reserved]

V. DEPOSITIONS

§4:130 Governing Principles

§4:130.10 Objectives of a Deposition

§4:130.20 Who to Depose

§4:130.30 Prepare to Depose Witnesses

DISCOVERY

AGE DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION 42

§4:140 Prepare Plaintiff for Deposition

§4:140.10 Review Documents With Plaintiff Prior to Plaintif f’s Deposition

§4:140.20 Discuss the Process and Review Questions Plaintiff is Likely to be Asked

§4:140.30 Help Plaintiff Understand the Defense Strategy in Deposing Plaintiff

§4:150 Deposing Defense Witnesses

§4:150.10 Plaintif f’s Strategy in Deposing Defense Witnesses

§4:150.20 Tips for Success

VI. FORMS

Form 200 Plaintiff ’s Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures

Form 201 Plaintiff ’s Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures

Form 202 Plaintiff ’s Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Disclosures

Form 210 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant

Form 211 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant

Form 212 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant

Form 220 Plaintiff ’s First Request for Production of Documents

Form 221 Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant

Form 222 Plaintiff ’s First Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant

Form 223 Plaintiff ’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant

Form 230 Plaintiff ’s First Request for Admissions

Form 231 Plaintiff’s First Requests for Admissions to Defendant

Form 232 Plaintiff ’s First Requests for Admissions to Defendant

Form 233 Plaintiff ’s First Set of Requests for Admissions to Defendant

Form 240 Notice to Take Deposition of Defendant [FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition]

Form 241 Notice of Deposition [FRCP 30(b)(6)]

Form 242 Plaintiff ’s Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition to Defendant

Form 243 Plaintiff ’s 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition

Form 250 Stipulated Protective Order [Discovery]

Form 260 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Other Case Management Deadlines

Form 261 Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of His Motion to Compel Discovery

DISCOVERY

43 DISCOVERY §4:10

I. OVERVIEW OF DISCOVERY STRATEGY

§4:10 Discovery of Facts to Prove a Prima Facie Case

Focus your discovery on obtaining the evidence needed to prove that age discrimination motivated the employ-

er’s decision that you are challenging. The elements and standards of proving an age discrimination case are



§4:10.10 Obtaining Evidence of Disparate Treatment



method, you will need to discover statements made by decision-makers at or near the time of the events in question.

See Grith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 2004) (“direct evidence is evidence ‘showing a spe-



   

evidence is evidence which, if believed by the trier of fact, proves the particular fact in question without reliance

upon inference or presumption. Nichols v. S. Ill. Univ.-Edwardsville, -

dence generally involves an admission or statement by the decision-maker regarding his discriminatory intent. Id.

Evidence an employer stated he was discharging an employee because of his age constitutes direct evidence. See id.

  

even if the evidence



See Van Voorhis v. Hillsborough County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 512 F.3d





The more common method of proof is the indirect proof method developed by the Supreme Court in McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. GreenSt. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks,

509 U.S. 502, 507 (1993), citing Texas Dept. of Comm. Aairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); Hazen Paper

Co. v. Biggins

 

 

 

• Was discharged under circumstances that support an inference of age discrimination.



is sometimes in dispute and the fourth element frequently is. Thus, your discovery goals are usually to obtain proof





    

actions. The goal is to leave only an inference of age discrimination.

PRACTICE POINT:

Obtaining Evidence of Disparate Impact Discrimination

Relatively few ADEA cases rely on the disparate impact theory of discrimination. Essentially, if the employ-

er-action at issue involves a plan or policy that appears to be discriminatory directly on its face, that constitutes

direct evidence of age discrimination and shifts the burden of persuasion to the defendant. The U.S. Supreme

Court aff‌irmed that disparate impact can be used to show discrimination, although it did not mention disparate

impact in age discrimination actions specif‌ically. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490

(2009). Disparate impact theory f‌lows from §(a)(2) of the ADEA, which provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful

for an employer… to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to

deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,

because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. §623 (a)(2). This language mirrors similar language in Section

703(a)(2) in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(2)(a). As with disparate treatment cases, the elements of your claim

for disparate impact discrimination will provide the foundation for your discovery plan.