Price v. MHM Support Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEPHANIE PRICE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-59-G
)
MHM SUPPORT SERVICES, )
d/b/a Mercy Edmond North, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Stephanie Price’s Second Motion to Compel (Doc.
No. 45). Defendant MHM Support Services d/b/a Mercy Edmond North has responded
(Doc. No. 46), and Plaintiff has replied (Doc. No. 48).
Plaintiff has raised claims of disability discrimination against Defendant, her former
employer. In the Motion, Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s supplemental responses to
multiple interrogatories and requests for production. See Pl.’s Mot. at 5-21; id. Ex. 1 (Doc.
No. 45-1). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant’s answers and production as to
the disputed requests.
I. Relevant Standards
Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties generally
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit.
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 1 of 13

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information that fits within this scope “need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable,” however. Id. “Generally, control of discovery is entrusted
to the sound discretion of the trial courts.” Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan,
619 F.3d 1151, 1164 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may serve on any
other party written interrogatories that “relate to any matter that may be inquired into under
Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must answer each
interrogatory, “to the extent it is not objected to,” “separately and fully in writing under
oath.” Id. R. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with
specificity.” Id. R. 33(b)(4).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 prescribes that a party may serve on any other
party a request to produce, subject to the scope of Rule 26(b), “any designated documents”
“in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The
responding party must then either produce the documents or “state with specificity the
grounds for objecting to the request.” Id. R. 34(b)(2)(B). “An objection must state whether
any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Id. R.
34(b)(2)(C).
II. Discussion
Having reviewed the parties’ filings and relevant authorities, the Court grants in part
and denies in part Plaintiff’s request, as follows:
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 2 of 13

3
A. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 5
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 5 seeks the identification of each person who, during a
specified time period, was (A) “supervised (directly or indirectly) by the person(s) who
made the final decision to terminate Plaintiff” and (B) “held a similar position” to
Plaintiff’s final position or performed similar job duties. Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 5. Defendant
objects that the decisionmaker’s remote location away from Plaintiff’s workplace and the
rote nature of the accommodation process make Plaintiff’s request “speculative” and
“irrelevant.” Def.’s Resp. at 6-7. Plaintiff’s argues that Defendant has conceded its
objections regarding individuals supervised by the same decisionmaker. See Pl.’s Mot. at
6. Further, Plaintiff argues that, at least within its offered limitations,1 the interrogatory is
proper because potential witnesses could exist despite the decisionmaker’s offsite location.
Id. at 9.
The Court finds the information sought by Plaintiff to be discoverable. Defendant
shall serve its answer to Interrogatory No. 5, subject to the geographic limits previously
proposed by Plaintiff, within 14 days of this Order.
B. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 6
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant, after this Court’s January 12, 2024 Order, did not
supplement its answer to Interrogatory No. 6, which requests the identity of Plaintiff’s
replacement, despite Defendant’s indication during a February 7, 2024 meet and confer
1 Plaintiff has proposed limiting subpart (A) to Plaintiff’s work location and limiting
subpart (B) to Plaintiff’s “department (Radiology) at her work location in Edmond,
Oklahoma and two other facilities in Oklahoma City located near Plaintiff’s work
location.” Pl.’s Mot. at 8-9 (footnote omitted).
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 3 of 13

4
that an oversight caused that failure. See Pl.’s Mot. at 11; see also id. Ex. 4 (Doc. No. 45-
4) at 7. Plaintiff maintains supplementation has not yet occurred. See Pl.’s Mot. at 11.
Defendant neither contests this assertion nor objects to answering Interrogatory No. 6 in
its Response. Defendant shall serve its answer to Interrogatory No. 6 within 14 days of
this Order.
C. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 7
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 7 seeks the identities of and specific information about
all others who requested an exemption from Defendant’s vaccine requirement. See Pl.’s
Mot. at 11; see also Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 6. Defendant objects on the basis of overbreadth,
undue burden, and disproportionality, describing the approximate numbers of medical
exemption requests and religious exemption requests as well as the resulting volume of
personal and private information that would be elicited. See Def.’s Resp. at 7; Pl.’s Mot.
Ex. 1, at 6-8. Defendant also states the information is not contained in a central database,
so it estimates it would take “hundreds of hours of attorney and non-attorney time” to
compile the response, which would also require use of a document review program that
imposes additional costs. Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 7-8. Plaintiff represents that she offered to
limit the request to only those employees whose exemption requests were granted and to
Defendant locations within fifty miles of Plaintiff’s workplace. See Pl.’s Mot. at 12.
This Court’s January 12, 2024 Order resolving earlier discovery disputes stated: “if
an objection is based on disproportionality or undue burden, Defendant shall provide
information regarding the scope of responsive information implicated and how difficult or
expensive it would be to comply with the request.” Order of Jan. 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 35)
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 4 of 13

5
at 1-2. Much of Defendant’s objection regarding the scope of this request overstates what
would be produced. The interrogatory only seeks the “first and last name, last known
address, last phone number, date of birth, job title, and dates of employment” of the relevant
employees and not, as Defendant characterizes it, the contents and communications of each
relevant employee’s request. Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 6. And although Defendant provided
some support for its undue burden and disproportionality arguments in its supplemental
objection, id. at 6-8, it has not done so as to the interrogatory as now limited by Plaintiff.
Parties cannot escape discovery because records are dispersed rather than collected
absent a sufficient showing of undue burden, which has not been made here. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment (explaining that when
“information asymmetry” is involved, one party “may have vast amounts of information,
including information that can be readily retrieved and information that is more difficult to
retrieve,” which “often mean[s] that the burden of responding to discovery lies heavier on
the party who has more information, and properly so”). Defendant shall serve its answer
to Interrogatory No. 7, subject to the limits previously offered by Plaintiff, within 14 days
of this Order.
D. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 10, Request for Production No. 17,
Interrogatory No. 12, and Request for Production No. 16
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 10 seeks information held by Defendant that would
factually support Defendant’s undue hardship defense and the identities and involvement
of those who participated in making the undue hardship determination. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex.
1, at 8. Plaintiff’s Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 17 seeks documents relating to the
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 5 of 13

6
cost of accommodating Plaintiff and related financial information. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 4, at
17-18. Plaintiff represents that Defendant has not provided any supporting factual
information, any identities of those involved, or types of involvement in response to
Interrogatory No. 10. See Pl.’s Reply at 6. Plaintiff further represents that Defendant has
not provided anything responsive to RFP No. 17. See id. at 6.
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 12 seeks Defendant’s factual basis for the defense of
direct threat, as well as identification of who made this determination. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex.
1, at 10. Plaintiff’s RFP No. 16 seeks documentation of and communications regarding
any individualized assessment of Plaintiff with regard to risks posed by Plaintiff. See Pl.’s
Mot. Ex. 4, at 17. Plaintiff represents that Defendant has not produced any responsive
information as to either of these direct-threat requests. See Pl.’s Mot. at 15-16.
Responding to Plaintiff’s contentions, Defendant states that it provided
supplemental production and that “it will further confirm with Plaintiff whether any
additional documents are responsive.” Def.’s Resp. at 8.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) places the burden on the party “who has
responded to an interrogatory” or a request for production to “supplement or correct its . .
. response: (A) in a timely manner if the party learns that is some material aspect the . . .
response is incomplete or incorrect” “or (B) as ordered by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(e)(1). Defendant shall appropriately and completely supplement its answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 12 and its responses to RFP Nos. 16 and 17 within 14 days of
this Order. At that time, Defendant shall also produce any additional responsive documents
relevant to those discovery requests.
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 6 of 13

7
E. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 14 and Request for Production No. 20
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 14 requests information about alternative positions that
Plaintiff was qualified for from six months prior to Plaintiff’s termination to present, as
well as whether openings were available in the positions, any offers were made to Plaintiff,
and, if none were made, why not. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 11. Plaintiff’s RFP No. 20 seeks
assorted documents relating to the same topic. See id. at 17-18. Plaintiff states that
Defendant has not produced any responsive information or documentation to these two
discovery requests. See Pl.’s Mot. at 16-17.
Defendant objects that any job openings prior to Plaintiff’s termination were not
relevant, and it reurges, to show it would be an undue burden, that it would be difficult to
canvas Defendant’s network of employment locations for alternative positions available
during the relevant period. See Def.’s Resp. at 8. Defendant also argues that the
decisionmaker did not have any authority over accommodations, potentially to argue lack
of relevance. Id.
Defendant’s undue-burden objections, as presented in its Response and as
referenced in its Supplemental Responses Nos. 5 and 7, are devoid of reference to vacant
positions or anything relevant to this discovery request, meaning it does not comply with
the directives of the Court’s January 12, 2024 Order. Merely arguing that production
would be difficult is insufficient, especially in light of Plaintiff’s offered limitations2 and
2 Plaintiff represents that she offered to limit the scope of Interrogatory No. 14 and RFP
No. 20 to positions available in the period of three months prior to Plaintiff’s termination
to three months after the termination and to within a fifty-mile radius of Plaintiff’s work
location. See Pl.’s Mot. at 17. Plaintiff further represents that to ease the burden on
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 7 of 13

8
the Court’s prior instructions. And regardless of the decisionmaker’s scope of authority,
other available positions are relevant to a failure-to-accommodate claim. Defendant shall
serve its answer to Interrogatory No. 14 and its response to RFP No. 20, subject to the
limits proposed by Plaintiff, within 14 days of this Order. At that time, Defendant shall
also produce any responsive documents relevant to those discovery requests.
F. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 13
Plaintiff’s RFP No. 13 relates to advertisements of available positions from one year
prior to Plaintiff’s discharge to present. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 4, at 16. Plaintiff subsequently
offered to limit the time period to three months prior to Plaintiff’s termination through three
months after the termination. Pl.’s Mot. at 17.
Defendant objected initially that RFP No. 13 was irrelevant, vague, overbroad, and
not proportional. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 16. Defendant supplemented its objection with
a cross-referenced burden argument addressing a different discovery topic. See id. In the
briefing, Defendant states that Plaintiff was not eligible for a transfer of assignment and
that the decisionmaker could not control her placement, so Defendant concludes that the
information should not have to be produced. See Def.’s Resp. at 11. Defendant also states,
in a nod to showing the request is unduly burdensome, that Defendant has “many” locations
within 100 miles of Plaintiff’s work site. See id.
As an initial matter, the Court concludes that position advertisements from shortly
before to shortly after Plaintiff’s termination are relevant and discoverable. This is because
Defendant she offered to review all job postings during this period to identify which
positions Plaintiff was qualified to perform. Id.
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 8 of 13

9
“‘a vacant position’ includes not only positions that are at the moment vacant, but also
includes positions that the employer reasonably anticipates will become vacant in the fairly
immediate future.” Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 1175 (10th Cir. 1999).
Further, the Court finds that Defendant again fails to “provide information regarding
the scope of responsive information implicated and how difficult or expensive it would be
to comply with the request,” as required by the Court’s Order of January 12, 2024. Pointing
by reference to a burden argument that addresses an entirely different discovery topic is
not sufficient. To the extent Defendant argues in its response that producing discovery
responses to RFP No. 13 would be a burden, the level of detail is still insufficient.
Defendant shall serve its response to RPF No. 13, subject to the limits previously
proposed by Plaintiff, within 14 days of this Order. At that time, Defendant shall also
produce any responsive documents relevant to that discovery request.
G. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 3
Plaintiff’s RFP No. 3 seeks production of a defined assortment of communications
“for the period between one year prior to Plaintiff’s termination to the present.” Pl.’s Mot.
Ex. 4, at 11-12. Defendant characterizes this request as “irrelevant and overly broad” based
upon the premise that it seeks the information “for the period of time Plaintiff worked at
Mercy,” which Defendant states is “approximately 13 years.” Def.’s Resp. at 8. Defendant
does not explain the basis for this interpretation, which appears to be at odds with RFP No.
3’s express time limit of one year prior to Plaintiff’s termination to present.
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 9 of 13

10
Defendant shall serve its response to RFP No. 3 within 14 days of this Order. At
that time, Defendant shall also produce any responsive documents relevant to that
discovery request.
H. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 5
Plaintiff’s RFP No. 5 requests information about other complaints of disability
discrimination asserted against Defendant. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 12. Plaintiff states that
Defendant produced responsive documents for Plaintiff but not for any other employees.
See Pl.’s Mot. at 18. Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s request does not encompass any
valid comparators because the decisionmaker was located at another worksite and was not
Plaintiff’s supervisor. See Def.’s Resp. at 9. So, Defendant concludes, it need not respond
further to this request because no valid comparators exist. See id.
Defendant is obligated to produce the information and documents requested in RFP
No. 5 to the extent that a complaint of disability discrimination against Defendant involved
either (1) a supervisor who was also Plaintiff’s supervisor at the time of the adverse
employment action challenged by Plaintiff, or (2) a decisionmaker who was also a
decisionmaker relevant to the adverse employment action challenged by Plaintiff. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530, 540 (10th Cir.
2014) (“To be similarly situated to the plaintiff, the other employees must share the same
supervisor or decision maker.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Romero v. Trader Joe’s
Co., No. 24-6, 2024 WL 2832922, at *3 (D.N.M. June 4, 2024) (reasoning that “relevant
comparator evidence relates to how the person who fired [p]laintiff . . . addressed similar
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 10 of 13

11
complaints of discrimination” when the firing decision was not made by plaintiff’s direct
supervisor).
Defendant shall serve its response to RFP No. 5 within 14 days of this Order. At
that time, Defendant shall also produce any responsive documents relevant to that
discovery request.
I. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 6(C)
Plaintiff’s RFP No. 6(C) seeks copies of Defendant’s rules and policies related to
COVID-19 and COVID vaccinations from one year prior to Plaintiff’s termination to
present. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 4, at 13. According to Plaintiff, at least eight versions of these
materials exist, yet only two have been produced. See Pl.’s Mot. at 19. Plaintiff also
represents that Defendant, at the February 7, 2024 meet and confer, agreed to supplement
this RFP but has not done so. Id. Defendant did not address this dispute in its Response.
Defendant shall serve its response to RFP No. 6(C) within 14 days of this Order. At
that time, Defendant shall also produce any responsive documents relevant to that
discovery request.
J. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 9
Plaintiff’s RFP No. 9 seeks information and documents regarding exceptions
Defendant made to its vaccine requirement. See Pl.’s Mot Ex. 1, at 13-14. Plaintiff
represents that Defendant has not produced any responsive documents. See Pl.’s Mot. at
19. Defendant objects that the request is too broad because it includes both medical and
religious exemptions and that too much confidential information would necessarily be
produced. See Def.’s Resp. at 9-10. Defendant also repeats its argument that Plaintiff’s
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 11 of 13

12
request is defeated by the lack of a common supervisor. See id. at 10. Plaintiff replies to
Defendant’s objection and argument that it is the existence of exceptions rather than the
reasons for an exemption request that is important because such exceptions show the
viability of accommodation and potentially disparate treatment. See Pl.’s Reply at 9-10.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff, at this stage, that it is the existence of exceptions
that is important and makes the exceptions discoverable. An Agreed Protective Order
(Doc. No. 18) is operative in this case; all parties remain bound to comply with it, which
allays Defendant’s confidentiality concerns.
Defendant shall serve its response to RFP No. 9 within 14 days of this Order. At
that time, Defendant shall also produce any responsive documents relevant to that
discovery request.
K. Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 10
Plaintiff’s RFP No. 10 seeks relevant personnel documents of persons who may be
similarly situated to Plaintiff or who replaced Plaintiff. See Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 14-15.
Plaintiff represents that, despite subsequently offered scope limitations,3 Defendant has not
supplemented its responses. See Pl.’s Mot. at 20. Defendant contends that responding
would reveal too much confidential information from the personnel files, and that the
request, if permitted at all, is undermined by a lack of valid comparators and should be
limited to only employees who have knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s termination and the
3 Plaintiff states that she has offered to limit the request to persons who worked in the
territories covered by the decisionmaker and to limit subparts (C) and (D) to a 50-mile
radius of Plaintiff’s work location. See Pl.’s Mot. at 20.
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 12 of 13

13
surrounding circumstances. See Def.’s Resp. at 11. Plaintiff replies that comparators need
not have knowledge of Plaintiff’s termination to be valid and that the similarly situated test
is not a discovery limitation. See Pl.’s Reply at 10.
The Court concludes that the information sought is, broadly, relevant and
discoverable. While the Court might have been persuaded to limit this discovery based on
concerns about undue burden or confidentiality, Defendant has not provided a principled
basis to do that. Defendant shall serve its response to RFP No. 10, subject to the limitations
offered by Plaintiff, within 14 days of this Order. At that time, Defendant shall also
produce any responsive documents relevant to that discovery request.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel (Doc. No.
45) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court declines to make an award
of related expenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
The deadlines imposed in this Order may be extended by mutual agreement of the
parties.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2025.
Case 5:23-cv-00059-G Document 63 Filed 03/25/25 Page 13 of 13