Facts: π worked as an administrative assistant for ∆ for approximately 21 years. During this time, Sister Stobierski ("Sister") became the interim principal of the Catholic school there. π alleged that Sister subjected her to sexual harassment in the workplace. π moved to compel ∆/Sister to testify to any prior treatment that she may have received for anger management or psychological/psychiatric conditions.
π also moved to compel ∆ to produce any records relating to this treatment.
Issue: Whether π can compel testimony/records form ∆ regarding claims that weren't claimed/pleaded.
Rule: FRCP 26(b)(1): discovery only applies to relevant and proportional information.
Holding: No.
Reasoning: sister's anger/possible psychological/psychiatric conditions were not pled as a possible reasoning for π's suffering of the alleged sexual harassment. Discovery is limited at the outer-bounds by the pleadings.
Judgment: motions to compel are denied.
Notes
Lesson #1: The governing question in this case was:
"Did the ∆ have any indication that the tortfeasor would do that?"
"Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable."
Lesson #2: What did the π miss here? What argument could they have made?
∏ didn't PLEAD that Sister's abuse of her was caused by possible anger issues, so there was no basis to allow discovery on it.
They could have argued that the sexual assault was about something else—learning about Sister's anger management/therapy history would have given them insight as to the reason for the sexual abuse.