Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Witten v. A.H. Smith & Co.

Witten v. A.H. Smith & Co.

United States District Court for the District of Maryland

January 3, 1984

Civil Action No. M-82-3198

Opinion

 [*447]  MILLER, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The plaintiff, John W. Witten, filed this putative class action alleging unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). (Paper No. 1). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, A.H. Smith and Company, A.H. Smith Sand & Gravel Co., Davis Sand & Gravel Corp., A. H. Smith, Sr., and A. H. Smith, Jr., discriminated against him and others similarly situated on the basis of race in the setting and payment of salaries, benefits, and in other terms and conditions of employment. The plaintiff alleges that he was employed by A.H. Smith & Co., a Maryland corporation owned by A. H. Smith, Sr. (Paper No. 1, para. 3(e)), and that he performed his duties at A.H. Smith Sand & Gravel Co. and Davis [**2]  Sand & Gravel Corp. (Id., para. 9(a)). A. H. Smith, Jr. is alleged to be an employee of A.H. Smith & Co., and chief of operations for A.H. Smith Sand & Gravel Co. and Davis Sand & Gravel Corp.

On May 31, 1983, the plaintiff filed a request for the production of documents directed to A.H. Smith & Co., Davis Sand & Gravel Corp., and A.H. Smith Sand & Gravel Co. (Paper No. 12). On August 18, 1983, "A. H. Smith (hereafter 'Defendant ' or 'the Company ')" (Paper No. 20, at 1) responded to the plaintiff's request for production of documents. (Paper No. 20). The defendant Davis Sand & Gravel Corp. also filed its response. (Paper No. 21). On September 6, 1983, the plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the responses, filed a Motion to Compel in connection with his request for production of documents. (Paper No. 24). Thereafter, counsel complied with Local Rule 34, and subsequently, the defendants filed an opposition relating to the two unresolved issues: (1) the geographic scope over which the plaintiff may compel discovery, and (2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to discovery of the defendants' affirmative action plan materials. (Paper No. 29).

I. Geographic Limitations  [**3]   on Discovery

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

100 F.R.D. 446 *; 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20819 **; 40 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 243; 33 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1238; 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P34,790; 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1130

John W. WITTEN v. A. H. SMITH & COMPANY, et al.

CORE TERMS

discovery, affirmative action, plans, Gravel, disclosure, courts, documents, confidentiality, compliance, cases, federal government, evaluations, contractor, portions, candid, equal employment opportunity, defendant corporation, voluntary compliance, alleges, self-evaluation, contracting, facilities, supervises, employees, practices, decrease, entities, parties, hiring

Business & Corporate Compliance, Discrimination, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Civil Procedure, Discovery & Disclosure, General Overview, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Affirmative Action, Program Compliance, Evidence, Government Privileges, Official Information Privilege, Self-Critical Analysis Privilege, Discovery, Privileged Communications, Privileges, Labor & Employment Law, Voluntary Plans