Francis Woukop YOMI v. The ARC OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, INC Civil No. SAG-22-964 United States District Court, D. Maryland Filed March 20, 2023 Counsel Francis Woukop Yomi, Santa Fe, NM, Pro Se. Nat Calamis, Dennis Chong, Carr Maloney P.C., Washington, DC, for The Arc of Washington County, Inc. Maddox, Matthew J., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM ORDER *1 Dear Counsel: Currently pending is the Motion to Compel filed pro se by Plaintiff Francis Woukop Yomi (“Plaintiff”). ECF 21. This motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. ECF 28. For reasons stated herein and during the hearing conducted on March 14, 2023, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this civil action against his alleged former employer, The Arc of Washington County, Inc. (“Defendant”) in April 2022, alleging discriminatory termination of employment based on race, color, and national origin, and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. ECF 1. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully discriminated against him by “not allow[ing] [him] to redo or retake the training after it said that [he] failed the Medication Pass (also called the Med. Pass) that [he] took on 12/17/2018, whereas [Defendant] allows Caucasian, White, and/or native of the U.S.A. caregivers who fail their Med. Pass to retake or redo the training.” ECF 1-1 at 1. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against him by terminating his employment for the purported reason that he failed the Med. Pass, among other reasons, “whereas it allows other employees of the non-protected group to redo or retake the Med. Pass when they fail it ....” Id. Defendant “does not dispute that Plaintiff sought employment with Defendant” and “admits it terminated Plaintiff's probationary employment on or around December 20, 2018.” ECF 11 at 1. Defendant denies that it terminated Plaintiff's employment for any unlawful reason. Id. This matter proceeded to discovery in November 2022, and discovery was scheduled to close by February 17, 2023. ECF 19. Plaintiff served on Defendant interrogatories and requests for production of documents. On January 19, 2023, Defendant served written responses to the interrogatories and requests for production. ECF 21-1; ECF 21-2. In two letters dated January 23, 2023, and January 24, 2023, Plaintiff detailed perceived deficiencies in Defendant's discovery responses and requested a discovery conference. ECF 21-4. Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant conferred by telephone on January 25, 2023. ECF 21-3. Plaintiff understood that Defendant would supplement its discovery responses by January 30, 2023. Id. When Defendant failed to do so, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, ECF 21, and a motion for sanctions, ECF 20. Defendant served supplemental responses to the interrogatories on February 1, 2023, ECF 23-1, and filed responses in opposition to Plaintiff's motions on February 13, 2023, ECF 22 and ECF 23. Defendant has also produced documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests for production. Plaintiff filed replies to Defendant's oppositions on February 27, 2023. ECF 25; ECF 26. On February 28, 2023, the Honorable Stephanie A. Gallagher entered a Letter Order denying Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, ECF 27,[1] and a separate Order referring the motion to compel to the undersigned magistrate judge, ECF 28. The undersigned conducted a hearing on the motion to compel by video teleconference on March 14, 2023. II. DISCUSSION *2 By reference to his letters of January 23, 2023, and January 24, 2023, Plaintiff's motion to compel challenges the sufficiency of Defendant's responses to eleven interrogatories and seven requests for production. ECF 21 at 2; ECF 21-4. A party may serve interrogatories and requests for production of documents relating to any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b) [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “Central to resolving any discovery dispute is determining whether the information sought is within the permissible scope of discovery, as stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).” Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 350, 355 (D. Md. 2012). Parties may generally “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The scope of relevancy under discovery rules is broad, such that relevancy encompasses any matter that bears or may bear on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Carr v. Double T Diner, 272 F.R.D. 431, 433 (D. Md. 2010) (citation omitted). Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “all permissible discovery must be measured against the yardstick of proportionality.” Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 523 (D. Md. 2010), aff'd in part, modified in part, Civ. No. MJG-06-2662, 2010 WL 11747756 (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2010) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)). District courts have been accorded “a wide berth to control discovery.” Bost v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Civ. No. ELH-15-3278, 2020 WL 1890506, at *9 (D. Md. Apr. 15, 2020) (citing United States v. Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, 899 F.3d 295, 323 (4th Cir. 2018)). Each issue raised in Plaintiff's motion to compel is addressed below. A. Defendant's Objections Plaintiff contests as “improper” various objections stated in Defendant's discovery responses. However, it is apparent from the responses at issue that Defendant has not withheld information or documents based upon any of its stated objections, and defense counsel confirmed that during the hearing. Defendant is entitled to lodge specific objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests and to produce responsive information and documents without waiving its objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). Any request by Plaintiff for an order compelling Defendant to waive its objections to the discovery responses is hereby DENIED. B. Defendant's Failure to Identify Documents Plaintiff argues that Defendant's responses to requests for production and several interrogatories, including Interrogatory No. 17, are deficient because Defendant fails to identify where in its document production Plaintiff can find documents responsive to each request. The undersigned agrees that, in the context of this case, Defendant should identify by Bates range or other means what documents it contends are responsive to each request for production and interrogatory and is hereby ORDERED to do so in supplemental responses. C. Interrogatory No. 2 Interrogatory No. 2 states: If it was not a Defendant's policy or rule or regulation to retake the Practical part (also called observational field exam) of the Med Pass Examination during the time of October 2018 and December 2018, did it make me be aware of that policy or requirement before I take the field exam of the Med Pass Examination in December 2018? If your answer is yes, please prove it, by providing documentation that can prove that the Agency made me be aware of that before I take the Practical or observational field exam of the Med Pass Examination that the Agency said I failed, and terminated me immediately in part because of that failure, including the date (day/month/year), who made me be aware of that, and how (by email, or mail, or verbally, or by telephone, etc.)? ECF 23-1 at 2. In its supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 2, Defendant states, in part, that “applicants for its Certified Medical Technician Program are told during their orientation that they must complete the practical component of the ‘med-pass’ test with 100% accuracy” and are “not specifically told that they will not be able to re-take the practical component of the ‘med-pass’ test should they fail it on their initial try.” Id. at 3. During the motion to compel hearing, Defendant's counsel confirmed that the reference to “applicants” to the Certified Medical Technician Program included Plaintiff. Defendant's response suffices to answer the interrogatory as written. *3 Plaintiff argues in his motion that Defendant failed to answer “whether or not Defendant made [Plaintiff] aware of the fact that if an employee fails the Med Pass Examination for the first time, s/he would be terminated[.]” ECF 21-4 at 2. The interrogatory does not ask whether Defendant “made [Plaintiff] aware ... that if an employee fails the Med Pass Examination for the first time, s/he would be terminated[.]” Plaintiff withdrew his objection to Defendant's response to Interrogatory No. 2 during the hearing. D. Interrogatory No. 4 Interrogatory No. 4 requests “the full name, along with the race, color, and national origin of each of the caregiver employees that Defendant has hired during the period of October 2018 to March 2019.” At the hearing, Plaintiff acknowledged that Defendant produced a list but maintained that two employees were missing from the list. Defendant is ORDERED to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 4 to address whether the two employees named during the hearing, whose initials are J.R. and H.F.B., were “hired during the period of October 2018 to March 2019” and, if so, provide their race, color, and national origin. E. Interrogatory No. 5 Interrogatory No. 5 states: Please provide the test scores of the field exam part of the Med Pass Examination of any and all caregivers in probation during the period of October 2018 to July 2019 who took it (including the passing score of those who passed it at once, and including the failing score and make-up score of those who failed it and retook it, and including the failing score of the one or those who failed it without retaking it, and including the date of passing and failure for each caregiver). ECF 23-1 at 4. In its supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 5, Defendant states, in part, “To the best of Defendant's knowledge, none of its employees other than Plaintiff failed the practical portion of the ‘med-pass’ exam during the requested time period.” ECF 23-1 at 5. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's answer fails to address whether any employees initially failed the practical portion of the Med Pass exam before ultimately passing upon retaking it. At the hearing, Defendant's counsel confirmed that, to Defendant's knowledge, no employee failed the practical portion, apart from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has identified at least one employee he contends failed the practical portion before ultimately passing upon retaking it: H.F.B. Defendant is prepared to produce personnel files containing information responsive to this issue.[2] If, upon review of these personnel files, Plaintiff contends that additional information is warranted, he may request supplementation of Defendant's discovery response. At this time, Plaintiff's request to compel a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 5 is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking any appropriate relief after he has an opportunity to review the personnel files to be produced. F. Interrogatory No. 6 Interrogatory No. 6 requests “any and all” of Plaintiff's “test scores of any and all examinations and Quizzes that [Plaintiff] took during the period of November 2018 to December 2018.” ECF 23-1 at 5. Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant provided his test scores in its production of documents but expresses uncertainty whether “all” of his test scores have been produced. Defendant's counsel confirmed during the hearing that there is no reason to believe that any of Plaintiff's test scores are missing from the document production. Plaintiff's request to compel a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 6 is DENIED. G. Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 18 *4 Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 18 request “the race, color, and national origin” of particular employees of Defendant. ECF 23-1 at 7, 10. Defendant's supplemental answers state that each employee is “Caucasian, White, and from the United States of America.” Id. At the hearing, Plaintiff acknowledged that these answers are sufficient to provide each employee's national origin and withdrew his objection. H. Interrogatory No. 14 Interrogatory No. 14 calls on Defendant to “[i]ndicate or specify exactly when (day/month/year)” a named employee of Defendant (H.F.B.) “ret[ook] the Writing part of the Med Pass Examination during the period of October 2018 to June 2019[.]” ECF 23-1 at 8. In its original answer to Interrogatory No. 14, Defendant states, in part, that H.F.B. “passed her observational med pass on July 25, 2018,” and “[a]t no point ... fail[ed] her observation exam as Plaintiff did.” Id. In its supplemental answer, Defendant further states that H.F.B. “never lost her certification.” Id. The supplemental answer adds, “[H.F.B.] initially passed the written and practical portions of the ‘med-pass’ exam. Due to a med-pass error that she made while working, she was required to be [r]etrained in accordance with Defendant's policies. She completed this retaining on September 19, 2018.” Id.[3] Defendant's responses fail to address whether H.F.B. retook the written portion of the exam and, if so, on what date. The requested information is well within the broad scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Defendant is ORDERED to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 14 to include this information. I. Interrogatory No. 16 Interrogatory No. 16 states: Please provide any and all dates (day/month/year) to which the caregiver named [H.F.B.] was certified, and recertified as a Medication Technician with [Defendant] during the period of time between 2018 and May 2020. In other words, when (day/month/year) was she certified as medication technician, and, also provide each time (day/month/year) she was recertified as a medication technician with [Defendant]. ECF 23-1 at 9. In its original answer to Interrogatory No. 16, Defendant states, in part, that “[H.F.B.] successfully completed CMT training, completed her med pass on July 18, 2018, and was licensed by the state of Maryland on October 9, 2018[,]” and that H.F.B. left employment with Defendant “before recertification was required.” ECF 23-1 at 9. In its supplemental answer, Defendant states, in part: [H.F.B.] was initially certified as a medical technician on July 25, 2018, after passing the written and practical portions of the “med-pass” exam. Due to a med-pass error that she made while working, she was required to be re-trained in accordance with Defendant's policies. She completed this retaining on September 19, 2018. Id. Plaintiff stated during the hearing that he is less interested in the question of recertification than the question of whether H.F.B. retook the Med Pass exam and, if so, when. This information is within the broad scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Defendant is ORDERED to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 16 to address whether H.F.B. retook the written or practical portion of the exam and, if so, when. J. Interrogatory No. 17 *5 Plaintiff contends in his motion to compel that Interrogatory No. 17 calls for a “yes-or-no” answer and identification of responsive documents in Defendant's production. Defendant's supplemental response includes an answer of “yes.” As noted above, Defendant is ORDERED to identify responsive documents by Bates number. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above and during the hearing on March 14, 2023, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 14, and 16 and Requests for Production as directed above no later than March 28, 2023. The parties shall file a joint report regarding the status of discovery after Defendant supplements its discovery responses and no later than April 4, 2023. Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an ORDER of the Court and will be docketed accordingly. Footnotes [1] Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for sanctions, ECF 29, which Judge Gallagher also denied, ECF 30. [2] Defendant noted during the hearing that the parties stipulated to entry of a Protective Order to facilitate the production of personnel files containing information responsive to Interrogatory No. 5. The undersigned directed that the parties file the stipulated Protective Order and, since its filing, has entered the Protective Order. [3] Defendant takes issue with Defendant's misspelling of “retrained” as “etrained,” among other spelling errors. ECF 26 at 2. At the hearing, Defendant's counsel confirmed that these typographical errors would be removed in further supplementation of Defendant's discovery responses.