A federal court has ordered the plaintiff in an employment discrimination lawsuit against Meijer, Inc. to produce missing documents and provide clearer responses in discovery, finding that the plaintiff’s explanations for incomplete disclosure lacked credibility and failed to meet legal obligations.
In granting Meijer’s motion to compel, the court found that A.O., who alleges racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, had not objected to any of Meijer’s discovery requests yet failed to provide the requested materials or explain why he could not. The court also ordered A.O.’s counsel to reimburse Meijer for half the attorneys’ fees incurred in drafting the motion.
Discovery shortcomings raise credibility concerns
Meijer’s motion sought information related to A.O.’s post-termination employment efforts, income, medical and mental health history, and tax filings. These are relevant to the company’s affirmative defense that A.O. failed to mitigate damages, and to the plaintiff’s own claim for $400,000 in emotional distress damages.
Despite indicating in discovery responses that he was working at Arby’s and had applied for jobs through Indeed, A.O. provided none of the supporting documentation for those assertions. “Plaintiff has not provided any of the requested documents pertaining to his employment with Arby’s even though he did not object to that discovery request,” the court wrote. Similarly, A.O. gave no documentation from his Indeed job applications, although the court noted that Indeed allows users to access up to six months of application history—data that could now be partially irretrievable due to the delay.
Regarding tax records, A.O. offered inconsistent reasons for failing to produce them. At one point he suggested they were stored on an inaccessible old cellphone; at another, that he had not filed taxes at all from 2020 onward. Despite Defendant’s suggestion that he request records directly from the IRS or authorize Meijer to obtain them, A.O. had not done so.
On emotional distress claims, A.O. stated in discovery that he had not treated with any mental health professionals and responded “None” to related questions. However, Meijer deposed A.O. and learned he had received some medical treatment. “Frankly this beggars belief,” the court said of A.O.’s explanations. “Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that Plaintiff himself is not very technologically inclined—but this is not a sufficient reason for ignoring Plaintiff’s discovery obligations.”
Waived objections and deficient efforts
The court found A.O. had waived any objections to the discovery requests by not raising them within 30 days. “Plaintiff has therefore waived any such objections,” the ruling stated, citing multiple precedents. While courts may consider the circumstances surrounding missed deadlines, the court found no justification for A.O.’s omissions. “The Court concludes that enforcement of Plaintiff’s waiver is more than equitable,” it said.
A.O.’s obligations to provide discovery extended beyond merely handing over what was at hand. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, the responding party must also seek out relevant materials in their “possession, custody, or control.” That includes documents they have a legal right to obtain, such as tax returns from the IRS or employment records from previous jobs under Michigan’s Employee Right to Know Act.
“Much of what Plaintiff has failed to provide to this point is within his control; and for what he does not presently control, he seemingly has a legal right to obtain the documents on demand,” the court found. The order also noted that Meijer had even offered to assist by providing release forms for some records.
Orders issued and deadlines imposed
The court ordered A.O. to provide supplemental responses within 14 days, including:
- Full answers to Interrogatory No. 6 and Requests for Production (RFPs) Nos. 1, 4, and 9, with clarification on efforts made to obtain unavailable documents.
- Complete documentation of his job search and mitigation efforts, including the last six months of Indeed application history and full email exchanges regarding a job interview with Wendy’s.
- Income tax records from 2020 to present, or confirmation from the IRS if he did not file during that period. If he cannot produce them, A.O. must sign an authorization allowing Meijer to obtain them directly.
Regarding the emotional distress claim, the court declined to compel A.O. to stipulate that he is only pursuing “garden variety” damages or that he will forgo expert testimony. However, if no stipulation is submitted within the 14-day window, A.O. must:
- Supplement Interrogatory No. 1 and RFPs Nos. 11 to 13.
- Identify any medical providers consulted over the past five years.
- Sign release forms for those providers.
- Clarify whether his previous “None” responses mean no documents exist or that he does not currently possess them.
The court emphasized that the burden of discovery compliance lies with the responding party. “A party to civil litigation in the federal system is under a severe duty to make every effort to obtain the requested information,” the order said, citing long-standing case law.
Sanctions imposed for repeated failures
Because A.O. never objected to the discovery requests and only provided a single new document after multiple rounds of deficient responses, the court ordered his counsel to reimburse Meijer for half of the legal fees and costs associated with preparing the motion. This does not include costs from status conferences.
“Plaintiff’s counsel provided incomplete and unclear discovery responses not once… not twice… but three times,” the court noted. The decision leaves the door open for Meijer to file a bill of costs if the parties cannot agree on a reimbursement amount.
A.O. must now meet all conditions within 14 days or risk further court intervention.
For more information, see Owens v. Meijer, Inc., No. 2:2024cv10732 – Document 18 (E.D. Mich. 2025).
