United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
PHAM, United States Magistrate Judge.
the court is Quannah Harris's motion to compel. (ECF No.
36.) For the reasons outlined below, the motion is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
a federal civil rights lawsuit. Quannah Harris alleges that
Jerry Biddle, an investigator with the Tennessee Department
of Commerce and Insurance, attempted to extort money and
sexual favors from her and retaliated against her when she
did not comply by submitting false unfavorable inspection
reports. (ECF No. 21.) Biddle denies these allegations. (ECF
No. 26.) Harris further alleges that John McClain, another
investigator with the Department of Commerce and Insurance,
forged and notarized Harris's signature on these
inspection reports, and that Roxanna Gumucio, Executive
Director of the State Board of Cosmetology and Barber
Examiners, submitted these false documents to the Board in a
disciplinary action despite knowing they were false. (ECF No.
21.) McClain and Gumucio deny these allegations. (ECF No.
August 23, 2019, Harris served various requests for
production and interrogatories to Biddle, McClain, and
Gumucio. (ECF Nos. 36, 39.) The parties dispute whether four
interrogatories and two requests for production have been
discovery requests directed at Biddle under dispute are:
• Interrogatory No. 7: Have you ever had any allegations
of domestic violence resulting in the police being called?
Please submit the name and contact information of the alleged
victim and give a brief description of the incident.
• Document Request No. 3: By way of request for
production of documents, please furnish statements referred
to in your answer to Interrogatory No. 6 above.
has not disputed Biddle's response to Interrogatory No.
6, which asked Biddle to describe all allegations of sexual
harassment made against him during his employment. Biddle
denied that any allegations of harassment had been made
against him. Biddle responded to Interrogatory No. 7 by
objecting on the grounds that the request sought irrelevant
information. Biddle responded to Document Request No. 3 by
stating that no responsive documents exist because Biddle did
not refer to any statements in his response to Interrogatory
discovery requests directed at McClain under dispute are:
• Interrogatory No. 13: Identify each of the notaries
public's acts, attestations, protections, and other
instruments of publication whereas an electronic signature
was used. For the last five years, submit a copy of your
notary record book or books in their entirety. Submit a list
of each electronic signature in which you notarized.
• Document Request No. 5: By way of request for
production of documents, please furnish a copy of your notary
book and a list of all previously notarized electronic
signatures requested in Interrogatory No. 13 above.
objected to both of these discovery requests on the grounds
that they sought irrelevant information, were overly broad
and unduly burdensome, and that producing the requested
documents would ...