ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOC. 32) AND SETTING A STATUS CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 14, 2014 AT 2:00 P.M.

MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This civil consent case is presently before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Doc. 32. Defendant Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("TWC") filed a response to Plaintiffs' motion to compel. Doc. 35. Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion. Doc. 37. In addition to the parties' briefing of the discovery issues, the Court held oral argument, by telephone, on August 19, 2014. The Court has carefully considered each of these documents, as well as the oral arguments of the parties, and Plaintiffs' motion to compel is now ripe for decision.

Substantively, this case presents claims by seven African American plaintiffs against their former employer, TWC, alleging race discrimination in violation of federal and Ohio law under disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. Doc. 4. Prior to their termination from employment, Plaintiffs worked as service technicians for TWC at its Tuner Road location in Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio. Doc. 4 at PageID 38. Plaintiffs all chose to perform their duties as part of TWC's "Start from Home" program, in which Plaintiffs' job assignments were chosen based upon the proximity of those jobs to Plaintiffs' respective homes.

Because Plaintiffs reside in what they claim are "predominately poor, minority neighborhoods," doc. 4 at PageID 38-39, they were allegedly disproportionately dispatched to jobs in neighborhoods where TWC uses "outdated, antiquated, and poorly maintained cable system[s]." Id. In addition to "[t]he defects in the cable infrastructure" allegedly present in these neighborhoods, Plaintiffs allege they also encountered:

Doc. 4 at PageID 39. Plaintiffs allege that their work productivity suffered when servicing customers in these "predominately poor, minority neighborhoods" because of these aforementioned issues. Id. at PageID 39-41. Over time, because Plaintiffs' productivity rates suffered, they were subject to increasing discipline until — at least with regard to Plaintiffs Swann, Bryant, Turner, Vaughn and Massey — they were ultimately terminated. Id.1

This current dispute concerns Plaintiffs' written discovery requests. The Court more fully set forth the relevant procedural history of the discovery dispute in its previous order addressing the litigation calendar, doc. 31, and will not revisit such history in this Order.

"[T]he scope of discovery" encompasses "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, the Court is required to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

Here, while the parties' present dispute concerns Plaintiffs' Interrogatories 3, 9, 10 and 11, as well as Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents 16 and 27, doc. 37 at PageID 779, the most significant dispute concerns Interrogatory 10. The Court finds Interrogatory 10 and its many subparts — for the reasons outlined by TWC in their brief, doc. 35, and during oral argument — overly burdensome when weighed against any potential relevance argued by Plaintiffs. The significant information for purposes of Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim is whether technicians starting from home in poor, minority neighborhoods of Dayton suffer lower productivity scores than those individuals starting from home in other — purportedly more affluent — neighborhoods; and whether African American were disparately impacted by the program.

The Court determines — from the parties' briefing and oral argument — that Plaintiffs need to know the productivity scores of all service technicians at Turner Road from the time each Plaintiff commenced employment in the "Start from Home" program through the termination of their employment. The Court is also inclined to allow discovery of each Plaintiff's productivity scores for the entirety of their employment. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to discover the race and zip code(s) of each service technician in the "Start from Home" program at Turner Road during the time Plaintiffs participated in the program.

Aside from the foregoing, the undersigned strikes Interrogatories 3 and 11, and Document Requests 16 and 27 as overly broad and unduly burdensome in light of the potential relevance cited by Plaintiff and the burden to produce such information and documents as more fully explained by TWC. The Court finds the above reasoning concerning Interrogatory 10 fully applicable to Interrogatory 9. To effectuate an efficient exchange of the information the Court finds discoverable as set forth above, counsel for the parties are ORDERED to confer IN PERSON and agree on a discovery plan to complete this and all other discovery within the next 90 days.

Accordingly, based on all of the foregoing, the undersigned DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to compel and ORDERS that discovery proceed as set forth above. The Court will hold a status conference with the parties on October 14, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. to establish a Calendar Order. Given the extensive time discovery has taken to date, the Court anticipates discovery will not extend far beyond the 90-day period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.