The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. William M. Skretny, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters, including hearing and disposition of all non-dispositive motions. Dkt. #13.
Currently before the Court is:
(1) plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to comply with the Court's Order dated September 30, 2008 (Dkt. #100);
(2) plaintiff's motion for a protective order denying defendant's request for further deposition testimony of plaintiff (Dkt. #101); and
(3) defendant's motion to suspend discovery pending consolidation of this action with 08-CV-503 (Dkt. #107).
For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel is granted in part; plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied; and defendant's motion to suspend discovery is denied as moot.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff was hired by defendant in October of 2002 as a senior telephone sales associate and alleges that, beginning in February of 2003, defendant failed to promote her, failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations, harassed her and retaliated against her because of her sex, national origin (Czech Republic), and disability. Dkt.#1. Plaintiff was terminated from her position effective January 2, 2007. Dkt. #12.
Following her termination, plaintiff commenced a second lawsuit alleging employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and retaliation, in violation of Title VII, the ADA, and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). 08-CV-503 at Dkt. #1. Given the legal and factual similarities between the two cases, the Court determined, sua sponte, that consolidation was appropriate. 08-CV-503 at Dkt. #16.
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Plaintiff moves to compel defendant to comply with this Court's Order of September 30, 2008, which directed defendant to "produce documentation demonstrating plaintiff's performance relative to other employees in her department from 2002*fn1 through the date of her termination." Dkt. #79 & Dkt. #100. Specifically, plaintiff seeks legible, original sized (81/2 " x 14"), copies of monthly reports for the Accelerator Program Daily Report. Dkt. #100.
Defendant filed legible copies of the 2004-2006 Accelerator Reports to plaintiff in a Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories By Sealed Document on February 10, 2009. Dkt. #105.
Plaintiff indicates that credit card sales were reported separately in 2004 and that this data was not provided with the Accelerator Reports. Dkt. #113, ¶ 9. Defendant shall provide this data to ...