NORA BARRY FISCHER, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Interrogatories, (Docket No. [108]), and Defendant's response in opposition, (Docket No. [110]). After careful consideration of the parties' submissions and the general standard governing motions to compel discovery, i.e., that the moving party bears the initial burden to show the relevance of the requested information and that it is proportional to the needs of the case and once this initial burden is met, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to demonstrate the lack of relevance of the requested documents or that responding to the discovery would be unduly burdensome, etc., see Samuel, Son & Co. v. Beach, No. 13-CV-128, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143549 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2014), consistent with the current version of Rule 26(b)(1),
In so holding, the Court notes that Plaintiff has asserted a claim against Defendant for its alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Docket No. 18). The factual and procedural background of this matter, which has been pending for over two years, is set forth in detail in this Court's Memorandum Order dated December 12, 2016. (Docket No. 98 at 1-4). In its Memorandum Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint and granted Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery. (Id. at 7-8). In granting Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Discovery, the Court stated that "Defendant will not suffer any prejudice because Plaintiff only seeks information regarding African Americans who have reached full retirement and benefits while working for Defendant. Plaintiff's limited request should not constitute an undue burden to Defendant." (Id. at 6-7). The Court reopened discovery "for the LIMITED purpose of permitting Plaintiff to serve upon Defendant an interrogatory, i.e., a written question as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33." (Id. at 7 (emphasis in original)). The Court further ordered that "
In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant's responses to the following nine interrogatories:
(Docket No. 108 at 1-2).
It is well settled that a court has inherent authority to construe its own orders. See, e.g., WRS, Inc. v. Plaza Entm't, Inc., 402 F.3d 424, 428 (3d Cir. 2005) ("[W]e recognize that great deference is given to a district court's interpretation of its own order."); Forta Corp. v. Surface-Tech, No. 13-CV-1608, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184219, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2015) ("[T]he Court has discretion to interpret its own orders."). In interpreting its Memorandum Order, the Court finds that Plaintiff's requests are outside its scope. Specifically, Plaintiff's interrogatories are outside the scope of the Court's Order holding that Plaintiff could issue "an interrogatory, i.e., a written question as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33" to seek "information regarding African Americans who have reached full retirement and benefits while working for Defendant." (Docket No. 98 at 6-7 (emphasis added))). Plaintiff's requests are also overly broad and are, therefore, unduly burdensome. For example, Plaintiff's third, fourth, sixth, and seventh interrogatories are not limited to any timeframe. The Court further finds appropriate Defendant's objection that Plaintiff's fifth, sixth, and seventh interrogatories are overly broad because he seeks information related to the fire, electrical, and paint departments, which are outside his own department. (See Docket No. 18 at ¶¶ 8, 13 (wherein Plaintiff states that he is a laborer/driver); Docket No. 110 at 2).
With respect to Plaintiff's remaining interrogatories, Defendant provided Plaintiff with the drivers' seniority list and with Richie Burkhart's date of hire. (Docket No. 110-4 at 2; Docket No. 110-5 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff has received the information that he requested in his first interrogatory. The Court finds that Plaintiff's second interrogatory is improper because well-established law provides that the results of drug tests are confidential. See, e.g., Murray v. Surgical Specialities Corp., No. 97-CV-444, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 277, at *19 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 1999) (explaining that Pennsylvania law protects against the release of drug test results).
For these reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Interrogatories, (Docket No. [108]), is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines for the filing of summary judgment motions set forth in the Court's January 27, 2017, Order shall remain as scheduled in same, (Docket No. [107]).
Id. at *19 (quoting 71 PA. CONS. STAT. § 1690.108(c)). The Court also notes that no confidentiality order was entered in this matter.