Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. East 40, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Equal Employment Opportunity 	)
Commission, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
and 	)
)
Erica Davidson, 	)
)
Plaintiff-Intervenor, 	)
vs. 	)
)
East 40, Inc., d/b/a 40 Steak & Seafood, 	) 	Case No. 1:18-cv-260
)
Defendant. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) served defendant with
Requests for Production of Documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34. In Request # 17 it
asked for “[a]ll financial statements for defendant for the period of January 2013 through present.”
(Doc. No. 34-1). East 40 objected to Request # 17 on ground of relevancy. (Id.).
On March 6, 2020, EEOC filed a motion to compel the production of the documents listed
in 	Request #17. (Doc. No. 33). It asserted that discovery of these documents is permissible and
relevant in determining whether and to what extent punitive damages are appropriate. See U.S. v.
Big D Enterprises, Inc., 184 F.3d 924, 932 (8th Cir 1999); 8th C. Pat. Civ. Jur. Instr. 5.72; see also
N. Dakota Fair Hous. Council, Inc. v. Allen, 298 F. Supp. 2d 897, 899 (D.N.D. 2004).
On March 20, 2020, defendant filed a response to EEOC’s motion in which it advised that
is withdrawing its objection to Request #17 and will provide EEOC with the requested documents
with the understanding that they will be kept confidential.
1
Case 1:18-cv-00260-DMT-CRH Document 38 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 2

Given that defendant has withdrawn its objections to Request #17 and is providing the
documents as requested, EEOC’s motion (Doc. No. 32) is deemed MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of March, 2020.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:18-cv-00260-DMT-CRH Document 38 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 2