Oliver v. Amazon.com Servs.

1

JASMINE OLIVER, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

No. 22-CV-149

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

May 8, 2023

DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S SPOLIATION MOTION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

NANCY JOSEPH, United States Magistrate Judge

Jasmine Oliver, who is representing herself, sues her former employer, Amazon.com Services, LLC, alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq.; discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and discrimination based on race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Several on-going discovery disputes between the parties remain unresolved and Oliver now brings a motion requesting sanctions for Amazon's alleged failure to comply with this Court's order to compel production of discovery and for spoliation sanctions based on Amazon's alleged destruction of surveillance video and job applications that Oliver contends are vital to proving her case. For the reasons further explained below, Oliver's motion is denied.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Oliver alleges that she was employed at Amazon from November 2018 through June 18, 2020 as a full-time Fulfillment Associate and as a packer within AFE 1, an organizational division of Amazon. (Compl., Docket # 1 at 2-3.) Oliver alleges that she has multiple disabilities under the ADA, including anxiety, panic attacks, depression, and tachycardia. (Id. at 5.) She alleges that while employed at the Fulfillment Center, she experienced harassment from co-workers regarding her perceived sexual orientation. (Id. at 2-3, 14-19.) Oliver alleges that the harassment triggered her mental health conditions and she sought accommodations from Amazon to address her health concerns, including separation from the harassing co-workers. (Id. at 2-3, 19.) Oliver alleges that Amazon refused to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. (Id. at 2-3.)

Oliver further alleges that Amazon retaliated against her for asserting her rights under the law, including by reassigning her job duties. (Id. at 7.) Oliver also asserts that she was discriminated against based on sex in violation of Title VII. (Id. at 36-51.) She specifically asserts that she was sexually harassed by a co-worker and despite reporting the harassment to Amazon, Amazon did nothing to follow-up on the charge. (Id.) Finally, Oliver alleges that she was discriminated against due to her race in violation of § 1981. (Id. at 51-67.) Oliver asserts that she was ultimately “forced off the job” by Amazon in June 2020. (Id.)

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

In early November 2022, Amazon filed a motion to compel Oliver's response to multiple discovery requests. (Docket # 25.) Oliver objected to Amazon's motion and asserted that Amazon's responses to Oliver's discovery requests were deficient. (Docket # 28.) I held a conference with the parties on November 10, 2022 in which both parties attempted to clarify their requests. (Docket # 29.) Oliver initially raised issues regarding her request for video recordings, to which I told the parties they may request another status conference to address the videos or any other discovery issues. (Id.)

On November 17, 2022, Oliver filed a motion to compel, asserting that while she attempted to confer with Amazon regarding outstanding discovery, Amazon continued to fail to completely respond to her Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6-9, and 11-21. (Docket # 30.) Oliver further argued that Amazon failed to provide information responsive to her document requests including discovery regarding surveillance videos that Oliver argued were relevant to her claims. (Id. at 3.) Amazon opposed the motion (Docket # 31), and I ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding this dispute and provide the Court with an update as to any outstanding issues by December 16, 2022 (Docket # 32). On December 16, 2022, Amazon provided the Court with an update explaining that the parties conferred for approximately two and a half hours, but continued to have disputes regarding several matters. (Docket # 35.)

I held another conference with the parties on December 20, 2022. (Docket # 36.) I ordered the parties to continue to confer regarding the issues that were raised at the hearing that had not been previously discussed by the parties. (Id.) Also discussed at length during this hearing was Oliver's request for surveillance video. Amazon represented that it has over 1,000 security cameras in its large Kenosha warehouse facility and that it believed Oliver was requesting footage for every day she worked during her nearly two-year employment with Amazon. Oliver clarified that she had narrowed down the footage request to specific days. Amazon confirmed on the record, however, that pursuant to its file retention policy, video is deleted after fourteen days. Thus any and all video from the relevant time period that Oliver requests is now gone.

Oliver moves for sanctions regarding Amazon's alleged continued failure to respond to her discovery requests and for spoliation sanctions for Amazon's deletion of the surveillance video and for allegedly deleting her candidate profile with job applications. (Docket # 37.)

ANALYSIS

In her motion, Oliver argues for sanctions due to Amazon's alleged continued failure to respond to discovery requests and for spoliation sanctions due to Amazon's deletion of the surveillance video and candidate portal. I will address each in turn.

1. Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery Requests

During the December 2022 hearing, Amazon was ordered to produce certain documents and the parties were ordered to continue to confer on issues that were raised at the hearing that had not been previously discussed by the parties. (Docket # 36.) Amazon contends that it provided supplemental responses as ordered on January 23, 2023; however, counsel requested Oliver clarify the issues she wished to further discuss before the parties scheduled another meet and confer. (Docket # 38 at 1.) Amazon contends that Oliver refused to clarify the issues, instead threatening to file this present motion. (Id. at 2.) Otherwise, Oliver asserts that Amazon has stated that it stands by its previous objections and answers. (Docket # 37 at 1-2.)

It is unclear from Oliver's motion how she contends Amazon's discovery responses continue to be insufficient. Is she asserting that the supplemental responses Amazon provided in January 2023 remain faulty? Or is her argument related to the additional issues she raised at the December 2022 hearing but the parties had not yet discussed and were unable to meet and confer on because, at least from Amazon's perspective, Oliver refused to delineate the issues?

Although it is not entirely clear, it appears that Oliver's request for sanctions is based on Amazon's alleged failure to comply with this Court's December 2022 order granting her motion to compel. Thus, Oliver must contend that the January 2023 supplemental responses are still defective. But I am unclear from Oliver's motion just how, exactly, the responses are defective. Oliver asserts that Amazon has, among other things, (1) not provided the contact information of even one individual with knowledge of her claims; (2) provided no documents that were created during Amazon's human resources department's investigation of the claims; and (3) provided only four employee statements from the investigation. (Id. at 3, 12.) But Oliver also contends that Amazon only produced four employee statements and she believes there must be more because Amazon “interviewed every employee.” (Id. at 12.) Thus, if Amazon did produce, for example, four employee statements, it cannot be that Amazon provided no documents created during its internal investigation of Oliver's claims as she asserts.

Rather, it appears that Amazon has responded to Oliver's discovery requests, however, she is dissatisfied or otherwise disagrees with the response. For example, Oliver argues that Amazon still has not identified the identities of management staff who scheduled Oliver to work near those employees who allegedly harassed her. (Docket # 41 at 7.) Amazon contends that work assignments are chosen at random and supervisors are not aware of who is paired with who on a given day. (Docket # 28-1 at 63.) During the December 2022 hearing, counsel represented that he would double-check with Amazon as to whether there is a specific person who makes the random assignments. Given Oliver's statement that Amazon rests on its previous responses, it appears Amazon does not have the names of the specific person, if any. Thus, as Oliver was told during the December 2022 hearing, even if she has evidence she alleges contradicts Amazon's response, that does not mean the response is deficient. For these reasons, to the extent Oliver requests sanctions for Amazon's alleged failure to comply with the Court's December 2022 Order granting her motion to compel, Oliver's sanctions motion is denied.

2. Motion for Spoliation Sanctions

Oliver contends that Amazon spoliated two categories of evidence in its control: (1) the surveillance footage from its Kenosha warehouse and (2) applications she submitted for jobs at Amazon. (Docket # 37.) I will address each in turn.

2.1 Surveillance Footage

Oliver sought production of surveillance footage taken from security cameras installed throughout Amazon's Kenosha warehouse. Oliver narrowed her request to specific days and times arguing that the cameras captured her ADA accommodation requests, sexual harassment, threats of violence towards her, physical violence enacted on her, verbal harassment, and sexual misconduct. (Docket # 30 at 3.) Oliver contends that the...