Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Horsnell v. Young Men's Christian Association of Middle Tennessee

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

December 1, 2014

MATTHEW HORSNELL, Plaintiff
v.
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE, Defendant

For Matthew Horsnell, Plaintiff: Heather M. Collins, LEAD ATTORNEY, Collins Law Firm, Nashville, TN.

For Young Men's Christian Association of Middle Tennessee, doing business as YMCA of Middle Tennessee, Defendant: Joseph A. Kelly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael R. Ewing, Frost Brown Todd LLC (Nashville), Nashville, TN.

Jury Demand

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN S. BRYANT, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending in this case is Defendant's motion to compel (Docket Entry No. 16), to which Plaintiff has responded in opposition (Docket Entry No. 20). Defendant has filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 21-1).

For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's motion.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Horsnell has filed his complaint alleging that the Defendant YMCA has violated the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., (" FMLA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq. (" ADA") and the Tennessee Disability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (" TDA") by denying him leave required by the FMLA and retaliating against him for seeking such leave and discriminating and retaliating against him on the basis of his disability in violation of the ADA and the TDA (Docket Entry No. 1). Defendant YMCA has filed an answer denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses (Docket Entry No. 13).

ANALYSIS

Defendant YMCA in its motion to compel seeks an order compelling supplemental responses to four interrogatories and three requests for production served upon Plaintiff Horsnell.

Interrogatory No. 6. Interrogatory No. 6 seeks certain information regarding Plaintiff's employers since age 18 to the present. For each employer, the interrogatory seeks the identity of the employer, the identity of Plaintiff's direct supervisor, Plaintiff's job title, a description of Plaintiff's job duties, his ordinary work schedule, his rate of pay, his inclusive dates of employment, and the reason or reasons the employment ended.

Plaintiff has objected on grounds of overbreadth, undue burden and irrelevance (Docket Entry No. 17-7). Despite his objections, Plaintiff has provided the names of his employers from June 1, 2004, to the present, the inclusive dates of his employment by each, and his job titles.

The undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that listing Plaintiff's employers for the prior 10 years, beginning June 1, 2004, is sufficient, and that information regarding employment held prior to that date is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, to the extent that Defendant's interrogatory seeks information about Plaintiff's employers prior to June 2004, Defendant's motion to compel is DENIED. The undersigned further finds that, with respect to the employers he has listed, Plaintiff should serve ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.