Employer Discovery Requests

# Employer Discovery Requests

Draft a targeted first set of written discovery to the employer that gets the core
documents for the client's claims without inviting an easy proportionality objection.
This is a draft for attorney review; the attorney finalizes numbering, definitions
and service under the governing rules.

## Inputs

1. **Court and rules:** federal or state court, the state, and any local rules or
   standing orders. Limits on the number of interrogatories (including subparts),
   timing, and format differ — verify for [court]. Federal court generally caps
   interrogatories without leave; confirm the current number.
2. **Pleadings:** the complaint and answer, including affirmative defenses (each
   defense opens discovery into its basis).
3. **Claims and theory:** which claims, the adverse actions and dates, the
   decision-makers, known comparators, the employer's stated reasons.
4. **Relevant period** the attorney wants (for example, from a year before the first
   protected activity through the present) and the employing entity and location.
5. **Wage cases:** pay plan, timekeeping system, scheduling system, and whether the
   case is individual, collective or class.
6. **What the client already has**, so requests aim at what they lack.
7. **Protective order status**, if confidential personnel data of others is sought.

## Method

1. **Definitions and instructions:** short and specific. Define "Plaintiff,"
   "Decision-maker" (by name), "Adverse Action," "Relevant Period," and "Document"
   including ESI and text messages on personal devices used for work.
2. **Core requests for production** (adapt to the claims):
   - Personnel file, payroll and benefits records, performance reviews, discipline.
   - Policies in effect during the Relevant Period: anti-discrimination, complaint,
     attendance, leave, accommodation, discipline, and the ones cited for the action.
   - The complaint and investigation file: intake, notes, interviews, findings.
   - Documents on the decision, including drafts and the reasons given.
   - Communications among named decision-makers about the client or the complaint.
   - Comparator records: discipline and outcomes for employees under the same
     supervisor or rules for similar conduct, with identifying details limited or
     handled under a protective order.
   - Documents supporting each affirmative defense; insurance policies if applicable.
   - Wage cases: time punches, schedules, payroll registers, pay plans, rounding and
     meal-break policies, and the system data dictionary or export format.
3. **Interrogatories:** stay within the limit. Prioritize identity of decision-makers
   and their roles, each reason for each adverse action, people with knowledge,
   comparators, the investigation, document retention and ESI systems, and the facts
   behind each affirmative defense. Count subparts conservatively.
4. **ESI:** propose custodians (named decision-makers, HR investigator, direct
   supervisor), date range, systems (email, chat, texts, HRIS, timekeeping) and draft
   search terms for the attorney to negotiate.
5. **Proportionality:** for each broad request, add a note on why it is relevant and
   how it could be narrowed if challenged (time, location, people).
6. Keep requests clear and non-compound. No argument in the requests.

## Output format

```
FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY — [Plaintiff] v. [Employer]     Draft for attorney review
Court: [court] | Rules to verify: interrogatory limit, timing, format, local rules

DEFINITIONS | INSTRUCTIONS
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (numbered)
INTERROGATORIES (numbered; running count incl. likely subparts)
ESI PROPOSAL: custodians | systems | date range | search terms
ATTORNEY NOTES: proportionality, confidentiality, protective order, what to add later
```

## Cautions

- Check whether initial disclosures, a discovery plan, or court-ordered pilot rules
  for employment cases already require some of these documents; do not duplicate
  them without reason.
- Requests for other employees' personnel data, medical information, or pay should
  be narrowed and paired with a protective order proposal.
- If an arbitration agreement applies, discovery limits come from the agreement and
  the provider rules, not the court rules; flag for the attorney.
- Draft requests for preservation issues (deleted texts, video overwritten on a
  schedule) as early as possible and note any preservation letter already sent.

## Quality checks

- Every request maps to a claim, a defense, or a named fact; none are boilerplate.
- Interrogatory count is shown and flagged against the limit to verify.
- Third-party personal data requests mention a protective order.
- No invented rule numbers or deadlines.

## Example excerpt (fictional)

```
Case: Hollis Grant v. Treymore Packaging (retaliation, FMLA interference)
RFP 6. All communications between Sandra Pike and Martin Leal from March 1, 2026
through the present that refer to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's leave, or Plaintiff's
complaint of March 3, 2026.
  Note: limited to two custodians and seven months; relevant to knowledge and motive.
RFP 9. Documents sufficient to show discipline issued for attendance by Martin Leal
from January 1, 2025 through the present, with names redacted or produced under
the protective order.
ROG 3. State each reason Defendant contends supports Plaintiff's termination on
June 12, 2026 and identify each person who provided information for that decision.
Running count: 3 of [limit — verify for court]
```