United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to
compel (#25). Plaintiff alleges she was terminated by
defendant from her position as a nursing home administrator
for reporting violations of law by another employee of
defendant to the authorities. Defendant denies
plaintiff's claim and asserts in its Answer that
plaintiff was fired due to her handling of issues related to
deficiencies in its sprinkler system.
seeks additional information in response to four
interrogatories and three requests for production of
documents propounded on defendant. Each is discussed below.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6. Please identify plaintiff Carla
White's role in resolving the issues with the sprinkler
system and any actions taken by Ms. White to attempt to
resolve these issues.
ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects that this Interrogatory
is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff was tasked with ensuring
that the sprinkler system was in a safe and working
condition. Beyond that, Defendant does not understand this
complains that defendant's response is incomplete because
it does not address plaintiff's specific duties with
respect to the sprinkler system, whether she should have been
aware of an issue with the system, and what steps plaintiff
took to resolve these issues. Defendant correctly observes
that plaintiff did not ask for “specific duties”
or of what she should have been aware. The Court finds that
defendant adequately responded to plaintiff's
“role” as requested by the interrogatory. As for
the actions plaintiff took to resolve the sprinkler system
issues, defendant says plaintiff has that information
it is not unreasonable for defendant to answer what it
perceived as the actions she took to resolve the sprinkler
INTERROGATORY NO. 7. Please identify and describe the process
that Ms. White was to go through to have the sprinkler system
repaired, including whether or not Ms. White could have
approved such repairs without the approval of her superiors.
ANSWER: As Administrator of the facility, plaintiff was
ultimately responsible for ensuring that the facility met all
applicable standards, including those governing the fire
suppression system. Plaintiff was expected to determine what
repairs were necessary and then follow through with a plan to
ensure compliance with any applicable standards.
says defendant failed to fully answer either part of the
interrogatory. Defendant counters that it “clearly
described what Plaintiff's responsibilities were, what
the expectations were for her, and what she was to do to meet
those responsibilities and expectations.” (#27 at 4.)
As for whether repairs would have required approval of her
supervisors, defendant states it cannot be more precise
because the answer depends on the nature of the repairs
plaintiff believed were necessary, and defendant offered to
supplement its response to so indicate. Defendant should do
INTERROGATORY NO. 17. Please identify the name, job title,
address, and telephone number of the Maintenance Supervisor,
and any other individual, who had any responsibility for the
maintenance and repair of the sprinkler system during Ms.
White's employ and describe the role of each such
ANSWER: Casey Thornton and Dames Dinger held the position of
Maintenance Supervisor during Plaintiff's employment.
states that it provided additional contact information as it
was obtained. Plaintiff states that defendant has not
described the role of each identified person; however,
defendant has described the “role” of the
maintenance supervisor by directing plaintiff to the job
description for that position that was part of its original
document production. The Court agrees that was a sufficient
response for the question that was asked.
REQUEST NO. 15. All documents related to the job duties and
performance of the Maintenance Supervisor and any and all
other employees responsible, in any way, for the maintenance
and repair of the sprinkler ...