Cornell v. Air Canada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-23476-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
LISA ANNE CORNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
AIR CANADA,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AIR CANADA’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY CONCERNING ALLEGED
DAMAGES AND ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE
This case came before the Court on October 16, 2026, for a discovery hearing on Defendant
Air Canada’s Motion to Compel Discovery Concerning Alleged Damages and for a discovery
status conference. Defendant’s Motion to Compel is fully briefed at docket entries 75, 77, and 78.
The Court has carefully considered the briefing, counsel’s arguments during the discovery hearing,
and the record and is fully advised in the premises.
In the Motion to Compel, Defendant asks the Court to compel Plaintiff Lisa Anne Cornell
“to provide complete damages discovery, including but not limited to, Plaintiff’s tax and income
records sufficient to establish all wages, compensation, and other income paid or provided to
Plaintiff in connection with her employment with Cornell & Associates, P.A.” 	DE 75 at 1.
Plaintiff does not dispute that her “wages, compensation, and other income” are relevant. Her
wages, compensation and other income undoubtedly are relevant, given that the damages she seeks
for alleged age discrimination include back pay and front pay. 	Id. at 6–7 (Plaintiff’s damages
calculation); see, e.g., U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Massey Yardley Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 117 F.3d 1244,
Case 1:25-cv-23476-DSL Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
1251 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The purpose of relief under the federal employment anti-discrimination
laws is to make persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment
discrimination. 	Consistent with this concept, once liability for harassment and constructive
discharge on the basis of age is established, the injured victim is presumptively entitled to back
pay from the date of the discriminatory discharge until the date of judgment, unless the victim
obtains or could have obtained substantially equivalent work before that time.” (citation and
quotation marks omitted)); Muñoz v. Oceanside Resorts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th Cir.
2000) (“In an age discrimination suit, a successful plaintiff receives back pay from the date of his
or her termination to the date of trial. . . . The failure to mitigate one’s damages is an affirmative
defense, and as such, the Resort bore the burden of demonstrating at trial that the plaintiff did not
seek comparable employment following his termination.”).
But Plaintiff maintains—and testified during her deposition—that she does not receive a
salary or hourly rate from Cornell & Associates, P.A., and thus she contends that she should not
be compelled to produce anything. DE 75 at 22 (deposition testimony). Plaintiff’s tax returns are
relevant and discoverable to enable Defendant to test the veracity of her assertion that she does not
receive an income from Cornell & Associates, P.A. 	See, e.g., Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Caldas,
No. 06-20976-CIV, 2007 WL 778976, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2007) (compelling a defendant to
produce documents reflecting on the veracity of his claim in an affidavit that he was a passive
investor in a company); Fair Hous. Ctr. of Greater Palm Beaches, Inc. v. High Point of Delray
Beach Condo. Ass’n, Section 1, Inc., No. 05-81040-Civ, 2006 WL 8066685, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct.
23, 2006) (“Generally, discovery seeking information with which to impeach an opposing witness
is discoverable.”).
Case 1:25-cv-23476-DSL Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
Plaintiff maintains that her husband’s income, which will be shown on her tax returns, is
irrelevant to this lawsuit.1 	During the discovery hearing, Defendant agreed that Plaintiff’s
husband’s income is irrelevant. But Plaintiff has not identified the specific lines on her tax returns
that include irrelevant information and that could be redacted. 	At the same time, a Stipulated
Confidentiality Order is in place in this case that provides protections for confidential material
such as financial documents that are produced as part of discovery. 	DE 59-1 (Stipulated
Confidentiality Order). The Court is confident that the parties will keep confidential any irrelevant
material that may be included in Plaintiff’s relevant tax returns.
Plaintiff has estimated her back pay for the period of November 1, 2024 to March 29, 2027,
and she has estimated her front pay for the period of March 30, 2027 to October 6, 2034. DE 75
at 6–7. Her pay history before the time she contends she began to accrue damages is relevant to
the accurate calculation of her damages. See, e.g., Gutescu v. Carey Int’l, Inc., No. 01-4026-CIV,
2003 WL 25589035, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2003) (“The requests concerning Plaintiff’s
background, including her education, her work history and her pay history, before being employed
by Defendants are relevant to issues in her sex discrimination case, specifically, . . . what damages,
if any, that Plaintiff has suffered. . . . Defendants have limited the request for Plaintiff’s pay history
to a reasonable period, less than four years before she began her employment with Defendants.
Plaintiff’s work history, pay history and education are relevant to her ability to mitigate.”).
Defendant requested copies of Plaintiff’s tax returns for tax years 2022 to the present. DE 75 at 10.
Production of tax returns for two tax years prior to when Plaintiff contends she began to accrue
1 Plaintiff raised privilege objections in her responses to Defendant’s document requests. DE 75 at 10–11. But she
does not maintain those privilege objections in the briefing, much less cite authority to support them. She therefore
has waived her privilege objections. See Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.
2012) (explaining that “failure to make arguments and cite authorities in support of an issue waives it”). Instead of
basing her opposition on a privilege, in the briefing Plaintiff relies on irrelevance and disproportionality.
Case 1:25-cv-23476-DSL Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
damages, as well as for the tax years she maintains she accrued damages, is reasonable and
proportional to the needs of this case.2
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel [DE 75] is GRANTED insofar as, by
5:00 p.m. on October 20, 2026, Plaintiff must serve on Defendant: (1) copies of Plaintiff’s federal
and state tax returns (whether individual or joint), including all schedules and any amendments,
for tax years 2022 to the present; (2) copies of any W-2s, 1099S, and/or alternative income records
issued to Plaintiff by any source or employer for tax years 2022 to the present; (3) copies of any
checks or paystubs reflecting any compensation paid to Plaintiff from Cornell & Associates, P.A.
for tax years 2022 to the present; (4) copies of any records reflecting a value for any non-monetary
benefits (for example, healthcare benefits) that Plaintiff has received from Cornell & Associates,
P.A. for tax years 2022 to the present; and (5) any documentation on which Plaintiff intends to
rely to support her claim for or calculation of damages.
Plaintiff must produce the above material that is within her possession, custody, or control.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (permitting a party to serve a request for the production of “items in
the responding party’s possession, custody, or control”); Searock v. Stripling, 736 F.2d 650, 653
(11th Cir. 1984) (“Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, control is the test with regard to the production of
documents. Control is defined not only as possession, but as the legal right to obtain the documents
requested upon demand.”). During the discovery hearing, Plaintiff indicated that her accountant
maintains her financial records. The Court presumes that Plaintiff has the ability to demand her
own financial records from her accountant. Withholding responsive material may be a basis for
sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).
2 During the discovery hearing, Defendant asked for the production of tax returns beginning in tax year 2021. The
Court declines to permit Defendant to amend its document requests at this late stage of the discovery period. And in
any event, the Court rules that production of tax returns for tax years 2022 to the present is proportional to the needs
of this case.
Case 1:25-cv-23476-DSL Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
Turning to the matters the Court discussed with the parties during the discovery status
conference, Plaintiff informed the Court that she believes that responsive email communications
exist that Defendant has not produced. But Plaintiff acknowledged that she had not yet discussed
the matter of unproduced emails with Defendant. Plaintiff is ordered to immediately confer with
Defendant on this matter to resolve any production deficiencies. The parties indicated that, other
than the income information that is the subject of the Motion to Compel addressed above and the
possibility of unproduced emails, the only outstanding discovery is two depositions that are
scheduled to be taken on October 21, 2026.
The current discovery deadline is November 3, 2026. The Honorable David S. Leibowitz,
United States District Judge, twice has stated that he will not extend the discovery deadline.
DE 61; DE 76. Thus, the parties must work to bring discovery to a close in the coming weeks. As
the Court advised the parties during the discovery status conference, the Court has limited
availability for discovery hearings during the next two weeks due to its criminal duty schedule. If
the parties have an additional discovery dispute, they must contact the Court immediately to have
the matter set for a hearing.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of
October, 2026.
___________________________________
PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-23476-DSL Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2026 Page 5 of 5