Koon v. Ricoh USA, Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM F. KOON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICOH USA, INC.
Defendant.
8:24CV481
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff ’s
Production of Text Messages (Filing No. 27). Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses
to its Request for Production of Documents Nos. 8 and 9 remain deficient in that the
documents produced contain incomplete text conversations with only piecemeal selections
and cutoff conversations that are not in any logical order or are produced in a confusing
manner. Plaintiff disagrees and represents that he has searched for responsive documents
and produced what he has. The matter was previously addressed through an informal
discovery dispute conference with the court on August 26, 2025, at which time the
undersigned instructed Plaintiff to supplement his prior discovery responses with the
“entire conversation/text chain related to the RFP and to do so within 14 days[.]” (Filing
No. 23, text minute entry). The court also instructed Plaintiff to submit a “signed
verification... regarding his production efforts, search performed, and affirmation that
every responsive document has been produced.” (Filing No. 23). It appears Plaintiff
supplemented some of his responses, but he did not provide the signed verification as
ordered.
8:24-cv-00481-BCB-RCC Doc # 33 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 1 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
For the following reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part the motion. The
court agrees with Defendant that it remains unclear as to whether the responses are
complete and further efforts should be taken. The court denies, however, Defendant’s
request for the retention of a third-party vendor, finding that the request is not proportional
to the needs of the case at this time.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts age and disability discrimination claims against his former
employer Ricoh USA, Inc. (“Ricoh”). He alleges in his complaint that he worked for Ricoh
for 32 years and served as a Branch Manager at the time of his termination in March 2023.
(Filing No. 1). He was notified by Ricoh Vice President Rod Denzer and Human Resource
representative Lynn Collins of his termination on or around March 28, 2023, during an
unexpected “TEAMS” meeting. He says the reasons provided for his termination, including
organizational and process changes, were pretextual. (Filing No. 1). He further alleges his
termination was retaliatory based on his prior medical leave of absence under the Family
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). (Filing No. 1, at ¶30).
Defendant issued written discovery, which included the following two requests for
production of documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, with Plaintiff’s initial response to each:
RFPD NO. 8. All emails, text messages, social media messages, electronic
messages or communications, or other written correspondence or
communications of any kind in your possession, custody or control that in
any way relate to any factual allegation or legal claim set forth in the
Complaint.
RESPONSE: To the extent Plaintiff possesses responsive text messages,
such documents have been or are being produced. In particular see
Koon000055- Koon000057. Additional documents may be considered
responsive, see Koon000048-Koon000054; and Koon000058-61.
RFPD NO. 9. All emails, text messages, social media messages, electronic
messages or communications, or other written correspondence or
communications of any kind between you and Roderick ("Rod") Denzer,
Lynn Collins, Shelley Rodriguez and/or any current or former employee
8:24-cv-00481-BCB-RCC Doc # 33 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 2 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
of Defendant that in any way relate to any factual allegation or legal claim
set forth in the Complaint.1
RESPONSE: To the extent Plaintiff possesses responsive documents,
they have bene or will be produced. See Koon000055-Koon000057.
Additional documents may be considered responsive, see Koon000048 -
Koon000054; and Koon000058-Koon000061.
(Filing No. 31-2, pp. 3-4).
Defendant took issue with the responses, sending Plaintiff’s counsel a deficiency
letter dated June 27, 2025, which noted that only fourteen pages were provided “which
primarily consist[ed] of job postings and text messages between Shelley Rodriguez on
March 30, 2023.” (Filing No. 31-3, p. 3). Defendant requested Plaintiff confirm he searched
for text messages, social media messages, and other electronic messages responsive to the
request and that the “search yielded no other results except the communication between
Shelley on March 30, 2023 around 7:10 p.m.” (Filing No. 31-3, p. 4). Plaintiff’s counsel
provided supplemental disclosures on or around July 22, 2025, and affirmatively
represented that “Mr. Koon has no documents that h[a]ve been withheld, which he has
repeatedly and consistently informed RICOH” and “Mr. Koon does not possess additional
documents responsive to RICOH No. 9.” (Filing No. 31-4, pp. 1-2).
Contrary to this assertion, however, Defendant argues that Plaintiff acknowledged
during his deposition on August 7, 2025, that he retained complete text messages with Ms.
Rodriguez dating back to 2022. (Filing No. 29-1, at ¶7). Defendant further alleges that
Plaintiff “has not responded as to whether he has text messages with Lynn Collins and Rod
Denzer, despite discussing the same during his Deposition.” (Filing No. 29-1, at ¶18).
Defendant addressed the issue again and Plaintiff responded with additional documents “as
potentially responsive to RICOH’s discovery.” (Filing No. 31-7). Defendant believed that
some of the messages were still cut off or otherwise incomplete and the matter was
addressed by the undersigned by way of a discovery dispute conference on August 26,
1 It appears Shelley Rodriguez was a Managing Director and Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor.
8:24-cv-00481-BCB-RCC Doc # 33 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 3 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
2025. (Filing No. 23, text minute entry, and Filing No. 25, restricted audio file). Plaintiff
supplemented his disclosures again on or around September 9, 2025, replacing some of the
prior text messages with more complete conversations, reorganizing some of the messages,
and redesignating others with new bates numbers. (Filing No. 29-1, pp. 35-39; see also
Filing No. 29-1, pp. 40-122). Plaintiff’s counsel represented in her affidavit that “Koon
continued to search for responsive documents using computerized means” and apparently
discovered “additional responsive documents may exist” and disclosed those. (Filing No.
31-1, ¶5).
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
“Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is widely recognized as a
discovery rule which is liberal in scope and interpretation.” Schall v. Nodak Ins. Co., 2024
WL 2355714 *2 (D. Neb. May 23, 2024) (quoting Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d
377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992)). This broad scope generally allows discovery “unless it is clear
the information sought can have no possible bearing on the case.” Id. (internal citation
omitted). Notwithstanding, the discovery rules should be “construed to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action [and] judges should not hesitate to
exercise appropriate control over the discovery process.” Id. This includes ensuring that
discovery requests are proportional to the needs of the case, considering factors like “the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’
relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
III. ANALYSIS
The court first finds that the requests at issue seek information that is relevant to the
claims or defenses and subject to discovery under Rule 26. Based on the allegations in
Plaintiff’s complaint, it is clear that he maintained regular communications with other
employees at Ricoh before and after his termination in which he may have addressed the
8:24-cv-00481-BCB-RCC Doc # 33 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 4 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

5
issues in this case. This included his supervisor Shelley Rodriguez, whom Plaintiff alleges
in his complaint repeatedly asked him if he was returning to work as part of a “pressure
tactic” by Defendant to end his employment while he was on leave. (Filing No. 1, at ¶22).
Plaintiff further alleges that he later learned that his position had not been eliminated, as
Defendant told him, and that two subordinates later interviewed for the position. (Filing
No. 1, at ¶22). He also alleges that he “learned” his supervisor was questioning other
employees concerning his retirement sometime late 2022 and early 2023. (Filing No. 1, at
¶22). Based upon the court’s review of the text messages already disclosed, it again appears
Plaintiff engaged in regular text communications with current and former Ricoh employees
and he may rely on those communications to support his claims in this matter. While the
court does take some issue with the scope of both requests as phrased, in particular the lack
of any relevant time period for example, Plaintiff did not assert any objections and any
objections are now deemed waived.
The court also agrees with Defendant that the manner and method of Plaintiff ’s
responses to Request for Production Nos. 8 and 9 has caused confusion and left doubts
concerning its completeness. It appears Plaintiff first disclosed just a handful of documents
in response to both requests, which included primarily some “text messages between
Shelley Rodriguez on March 30, 2023 around 7:10 p.m.” (Filing No. 31-3, p. 4). When
Defendant challenged those responses, Plaintiff boldly represented that he had nothing else
“which he has repeatedly and consistently informed RICOH.” (Filing No. 31-4, pp. 1-2).
But that appeared to be incorrect, as Plaintiff then discovered additional text messages and
disclosed those, representing that he unilaterally had decided earlier to leave off “idle chit
chat” that he did not think was relevant. (Filing No. 29-1, p. 33).
When the matter was addressed further, Plaintiff apparently used a computer to
enhance his search and discovered additional messages that should have been disclosed. In
supplementing his disclosures, the court was unable to identify the missing or cutoff
messages as alleged by Defendant. However, Plaintiff’s counsel redesignated some of the
documents with new bates numbers which only caused more confusion as to which
8:24-cv-00481-BCB-RCC Doc # 33 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 5 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

6
documents were new or replaced. For example, it appears some of the bates numbering on
new documents overlapped with other documents previously disclosed. The court had
similar difficulties in keeping track of the various messages. The court accordingly agrees
that the responses to Request for Production Nos. 8 and 9 need to be revisited. While
Plaintiff represents in his response brief that he has no further text messages to produce,
his prior actions cast some doubt on that assertion. Moreover, Plaintiff has still not
complied with the court’s prior order directing him to provide a signed verification
regarding his production efforts, search performed, and affirmation that all responsive
documents have been produced. (Filing No. 23, text minute entry). He needs to do so.
Defendant asks the court to order Plaintiff to provide his mobile device(s) to a third -
party vendor called “MRD” which has the “capabilities of assisting with the collection of
the mobile phone that will allow for specific collection of information to/from a specific
set of phone numbers (including messages).” (Filing No. 28, p. 11). This vendor apparently
charges a flat fee of $1,500 for this targeted collection. (Filing No. 28). The court, however,
has some concerns with this approach and finds that it is not proportional to the needs of
the case.
Discovery is of course not a fishing expedition and there would seem to be
alternative and less invasive means of addressing this issue. A request for text messages is
not unusual and as Defendant points out, the Eighth Circuit has held that it “is well
established that text messages fit comfortably within the scope of materials that a party
may request under Rule 34.” (Filing No. 28, p. 1, quoting Paisley Park Enters. V. Boxill,
330 F.R.D. 226, 234 (D. Minn. 2019)). If Plaintiff is not able to comply with the discovery
request and obtain the necessary information in a more complete form and with the
verification as ordered, he can provide his mobile device to his attorney who may have IT
personnel who can assist. Plaintiff could also retain the services of a vendor like MRD to
assist if necessary, but the court will allow him and his counsel to make that choice. Plaintiff
and his counsel are also capable of reorganizing the documents already disclosed in a more
complete and chronological format, grouping text messages by person and conversation,
8:24-cv-00481-BCB-RCC Doc # 33 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 6 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>

7
with new consecutive bates numbers. Defendant may also reconvene Plaintiff for his
deposition and inquire about these issues further, which it has already reserved the right to
do.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Filing No. 27) is granted in part and denied in
part.
2. Defendant’s request for an order requiring Plaintiff to engage in a third-party
provider to produce his text messages at his expense is denied.
3. Plaintiff shall again review Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents
No. 8 and No. 9 and disclose all requested documents as specified, including
“emails, text messages, social media messages, electronic messages or
communications, or other written correspondence or communications” as
defined and limited. Any objections to these discovery requests are now waived.
4. Plaintiff shall provide a complete and new response to these particular requests
within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, regardless of whether the
documents were previously produced. The documents shall be in chronological
format, grouping electronic communications by person and conversation, with
new consecutive bates numbers.
5. Plaintiff shall also separately provide with his disclosure a signed verification
identifying his production efforts, the search performed, and affirmation that
every responsive document has been produced.
6. Defendant’s request for attorney fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5) is denied without prejudice, the court finding that the award of expenses
unjust at this time. Defendant’s request for relief was denied in part, but it
certainly may reassert a request for fees and costs should the discovery issues
addressed herein continue.
Dated this 29th day of October, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ryan C. Carson
United States Magistrate Judge
8:24-cv-00481-BCB-RCC Doc # 33 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 7 of 7 - Page ID #
<pageID>