Butler v. Amazon Fulfillment Center MEM 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

________________________________________________________________

THOMAS J. BUTLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 24-cv-2251-TLP-tmp

)

AMAZON FULFILLMENT CENTER )

MEM 4, )

)

Defendant. )

)

________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO

SUPPLEMENT DISCOVERY RESPONSES

________________________________________________________________

Before the court is defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC’s

(“Amazon”)1 Rule 37 Motion for Dismissal as Sanction, or In the

Alternative, Compel Plaintiff to Supplement Discovery (“Motion to

Compel”), filed on December 23, 2024. (ECF No. 23.)2 For the reasons

below, Amazon’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part.

1Amazon asserts that plaintiff improperly named defendant as

“Amazon Fulfillment Center MEM 4” in his complaint. (ECF No. 23 at

PageID 219 n.1.)

2Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case has been

referred to the United States magistrate judge for management of

all pretrial matters for determination or report and

recommendation, as appropriate.

I. BACKGROUND

Pro se plaintiff Thomas J. Butler filed his complaint against

Amazon on April 17, 2024, alleging violations of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et

seq. (ECF No. 1.) Butler claims that he was injured while working

as a “Picker and Packer” for Amazon’s Memphis-based fulfillment

center. (Id. at PageID 3.) Because of this injury, Butler alleges

that he “developed a disability” for which he sought, but was

repeatedly denied, reasonable accommodations and worker’s

compensation. (Id. at PageID 3-4.) Butler was terminated from his

position in June 2023 for purportedly violating Amazon’s

attendance policy, a rationale that Butler appears to imply was

pretextual. (See id. at PageID 4.)

After the undersigned held a scheduling conference on August

13, 2024, (ECF No. 17), Amazon served its first sets of

Interrogatories and Requests for Production on September 30, 2024.

(ECF No. 23 at PageID 221.) According to Amazon, Butler initially

failed to respond, but eventually served his Response to

Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and his Production of

Documents to Defendant’s First Requests for Production on November

7, 2024. (Id.) Amazon contends, however, that Butler’s discovery

responses were “incomplete, evasive, and generally did not comply

with the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].” (Id.) In addition,

Amazon argues that Butler failed to properly execute waivers

authorizing counsel for Amazon to obtain copies of Butler’s

medical, employment, and unemployment records. (Id. at PageID 222-

23; see ECF No. 23-3 at PageID 282-84.) Amazon explains that, “in

recognition of Plaintiff’s pro se status,” these waivers would

have allowed Amazon to more easily obtain records directly from

Butler’s medical providers and current and former employers. (ECF

No. 23 at PageID 222.)

On December 5, 2024, counsel for Amazon sent a letter to

Butler (the “Deficiency Letter”) identifying deficiencies in his

discovery responses and requesting that he supplement and respond

on or before Monday, December 16, 2024. (Id. at PageID 219; see

also ECF No. 23-1.) Amazon argues that, while Butler did respond

on December 16, his responses were still wholly deficient. (ECF

No. 23 at PageID 220.) Counsel for Amazon then attempted to contact

Butler by phone and by email on December 18 and 19, 2024. (Id.)

Butler eventually responded via email on December 20, 2024, writing

only: “Did you report this change to the court, how do I know you

are noticed by this court. I did not receive a notice from the

court that you are to be the attorney on file.” (Id.; see also ECF

No. 23-8 at PageID 318.) Butler did not otherwise address his

purportedly deficient discovery responses. Amazon maintains that

Butler has thus “refused to supplement his Answers and [Requests

for Production] Responses and could not be reached after

Defendant’s attorney attempted to confer.” (ECF No. 23 at PageID

221.)

After its unsuccessful attempts at conferring with Butler,

Amazon filed the instant Motion to Compel on December 23, 2024.

(Id.) It seeks dismissal of Butler’s complaint under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 37 for his alleged failure to respond to

Amazon’s discovery requests. (Id. at PageID 219.) In support,

Amazon argues that Butler has “continue[d] his pre-suit pattern of

failing to provide requested documentation to substantiate his

claims”——conduct that Amazon contends is a willful attempt by

Butler “to unilaterally limit the scope of Defendant’s permissible

discovery.” (Id. at PageID 221, 225-26.) Alternatively, Amazon

moves the court to order Butler to respond to its Interrogatories

and Requests for Production “in a manner that either: (1) provides

the correct information and documents or (2) clearly advises

Defendant that Plaintiff has no responsible documents or

information.” (Id. at PageID 229.) Moreover, Amazon argues that

[f]or those Interrogatories and Requests for Production

that seek employment and medical records, the Court

should order Plaintiff to properly and completely

prepare authorization forms for each employer and

medical provider for two years prior to his employment

with Defendant and for the entire period since his

employment with Defendant.

(Id.)

Butler responded in opposition on January 13, 2025. (ECF No.

24.) Among other arguments, Butler contends that he did respond to

Amazon’s discovery requests, even if “[Amazon] may not like [those]

responses.” (Id. at PageID 322.) Butler further admits that counsel

for Amazon reached out to him about alleged deficiencies in his

discovery responses. (Id. at PageID 319.) However, Butler appears

to argue that Amazon’s “position” was instead deficient, as “[t]he

attorney that sent the letter was not a[n] attorney recognized by

this court nor the Plaintiff.” (Id.)3 Butler also alleges that he

“did in fact provide the Defendant with . . . language stating

[that for] certain request[s], Plaintiff had no documents to give”;

that “some of the documents requested [were] lost” since Butler

left his position at Amazon; and that he is “working in good faith”

to obtain “doctors’ bills . . . [and] doctor correspondence.” (Id.

at PageID 324, 326.)

After obtaining leave of court, Amazon filed a reply in

support of its Motion to Compel on January 27, 2025. (ECF Nos. 25,

26, 27.) Amazon asserts that the documentation it provided as

3The court notes that defense counsel Susan Elgin and Stacey

Smiricky appeared in this action on July 3, 2024, (see ECF Nos.

10, 11), several months before attorneys Elgin and Smiricky sent

the Deficiency Letter to Butler on December 5, 2024, (see ECF No.

23-1 at PageID 237). Former counsel of record Tejal Garg also filed

a Notice of Appearance on December 13, 2024, (see ECF No. 22),

five days before she attempted to contact Butler on December 18

regarding his allegedly “still-deficient [discovery] responses,”

(ECF Nos. 23 at PageID 220; 23-8 at PageID 318). Butler’s argument

is therefore unavailing. Moreover, even if any counsel for Amazon

had not properly appeared, that fact would not excuse Butler’s

failure to provide complete responses to Amazon’s discovery

requests.

exhibits to its Motion to Compel belies Butler’s contention that

he has provided all the answers Amazon sought in discovery. (ECF

No. 27 at PageID 332.) Instead, Amazon again argues that Butler is

either willfully withholding relevant information, including

information regarding his medical records and employment history,

“or he has no relevant information to support the elements of his

cause of action.” (Id. at PageID 336.) According to Amazon,

“[e]ither way, dismissal is an appropriate sanction,” or in the

alternative, warrants an order from the court directing Butler to

provide properly executed releases for employment and medical

information. (Id.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for Dismissal as a Sanction

The court first considers Amazon’s request for an order

dismissing Butler’s complaint as a sanction under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 37. That rule provides that if “a party, after

being properly served with interrogatories under Rule 33 or a

request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answer,

objections, or written response,” the court may, on motion, order

sanctions against the offending party. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(d)(1)(A)(ii). Sanctions may include dismissing an action in

whole or in part, if appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v),

(d)(3). The decision to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply

with a discovery obligation is within the discretion of the trial

court. Mager v. Wis. Cent. Ltd., 924 F.3d 831, 837 (6th Cir. 2019)

(citing Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S.

639, 642 (1976) (per curiam); Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176

F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999); Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 110

F.3d 364, 366 (6th Cir. 1997)). But it “is the sanction of last

resort.” Beil v. Lakewood Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 15 F.3d 546, 552 (6th

Cir. 1994).

Courts in the Sixth Circuit consider four factors when

determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction for a

party’s failure to comply with discovery obligations:

(1) whether the party's failure to cooperate in

discovery is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault;

(2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the

dismissed party's failure to cooperate in discovery; (3)

whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to

cooperate would lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less

drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before

dismissal was ordered.

Norris v. MK Holdings, Inc., 734 F. App'x 950, 957 (6th Cir. 2018)

(quoting Harmon, 110 F.3d at 366-67). “Although typically none of

the factors is outcome dispositive, . . . a case is

properly dismissed by the district court where there is a clear

record of delay or contumacious conduct.” Id. (quoting Schafer v.

City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 2008)).

At this time, the court declines to order dismissal or other

sanctions under Rule 37.4 Although Amazon’s argument that it has

been “undoubtedly prejudiced” by Butler’s reluctance to cooperate

in discovery is well-taken, the court finds that Amazon has not

presented sufficient facts to suggest that Butler’s failure to

cooperate was motivated by willfulness, bad faith, or fault.

Moreover, the instant motion to compel is Amazon’s first notice to

the court of Butler’s allegedly deficient discovery responses. The

court accordingly has not warned Butler that his failure to

cooperate in discovery could result in dismissal, nor considered

less drastic sanctions under Rule 37.

Under these circumstances, Amazon’s Motion for Dismissal is

DENIED. Butler is hereby warned, however, that failure to comply

with discovery obligations or court directives——including the

instant order——may result in future sanctions, including awarding

attorney’s fees and dismissal of his complaint with prejudice.

B. Motion to Compel

In lieu of dismissal, Amazon alternatively moves for an order

compelling Butler to submit complete responses to its

interrogatories and requests for production. Under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 37(a), “[a] party seeking discovery may move for

4Because the undersigned finds that dismissal is not warranted

here, disposition of this motion by order is appropriate. See

Builders Insulation of Tenn., LLC v. S. Energy Sols., No. 17-cv-

2668-TLP-tmp, 2020 WL 265297, at *4-5 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2020).

an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or

inspection” if “a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted

under Rule 33; or a party fails to produce documents or fails to

respond that inspection will be permitted——or fails to permit

inspection——as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). In deciding a Motion to Compel, “an evasive

or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as

a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(4).

Generally, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(b)(1). The court may limit discovery upon a showing that the

discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or is

more easily obtainable from another source; that the party seeking

discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information

sought; or that the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs

its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). “The party seeking

discovery is obligated to demonstrate relevance.” Myrtil v. Serra

Chevrolet, No. 22-cv-MSN-tmp, 2023 WL 4493717, at *2 (W.D. Tenn.

July 12, 2023) (citing Johnson v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 18-CV-1051-

STA-tmp, 2019 WL 5089086, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2019)). “Upon

a showing of relevance, the burden shifts to the party opposing

discovery to show, with specificity, why the requested discovery

is not proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. (citing William

Powell Co. v. Nat'l Indem. Co., No. 1:14-CV-00807, 2017 WL 1326504,

at *5 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2017), aff'd sub nom. 2017 WL 3927525

(S.D. Ohio Jun. 21, 2017), and modified on reconsideration, 2017

WL 4315059 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2017)).

In its Motion to Compel, Amazon identifies fifteen Requests

for Production and thirteen Interrogatories to which it contends

Butler failed to adequately respond. (See ECF No. 23 at PageID

221-22 n.3, n.4, n.5, n.6.) The substance of these discovery

requests can be grouped into four categories: (1) requests for

documents generally related to Butler’s allegations in his

complaint; (2) requests for information and records related to

Butler’s medical history and treatment; (3) requests for

information and documents related to Butler’s economic damages

claims, including Butler’s attempts at mitigating damages after

his termination from Amazon; and (4) requests for information and

documents related to potential fact or expert witnesses. (See id.)5

The court considers each category in turn below.

1. General Requests for Production

5The court notes that Amazon similarly groups Butler’s purportedly

deficient discovery responses into four categories in its Motion

to Compel. (See ECF No. 23 at PageID 221-22 (grouping Butler’s

alleged deficiencies into Categories 1-4).) However, for purposes

of the below analysis, the court has chosen to reorder its

consideration of Amazon’s discovery requests.

Amazon first contends that Butler has failed to sufficiently

respond to Request for Production Nos. 2 and 26, which broadly ask

for documentation supporting “allegations in [Butler’s]

Complaint.” (ECF No. 23-3 at PageID 276, 279.) The requests and

Butler’s responses read as follows:

[Request No.] 2. All Documents that relate to any

allegations in your Complaint.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff[’s] only documents relied on [were]

presented as exhibits in [his] civil complaint.

. . .

[Request No.] 26. All Communications and other

correspondence, including but not limited to email and

text messages, between you and any Person constituting,

reflecting, memorializing, or otherwise relating to the

allegations contained in the Complaint.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff[’s] only documents relied on [were]

presented as exhibits in [his] civil complaint, and

in [Plaintiff’s] Initial disclosures provided.

(ECF No. 23-5 at PageID 305, 311.)

Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)’s standard,

the court first finds that Amazon’s requests are relevant and

proportional to the needs of the case. Second, the court finds

that Butler’s response to Request No. 2 is sufficient. However,

given that Request No. 26 focuses on communications and

correspondence, the court finds that Butler’s answer to that

request is deficient. Even if true that the only responsive

documents in Butler’s possession are those attached as exhibits to

his complaint or produced in his initial disclosures, Butler is

obligated to specifically identify and produce any communications

and correspondence responsive to Amazon’s discovery request. See

Merritt v. Wipro Ltd., No. 23-cv-2453-SHM-tmp, 2025 WL 725751, at

*3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 6, 2025) (citing Provost v. Corrections Corp.

of Am., No. 2:08-cv-02488-JDT-cgc, 2010 WL 396231, at *9 (W.D.

Tenn. Jan. 27, 2020)) (“Even where [plaintiff] has made certain

documents part of the record, he is still required to produce them

in response to [defendant’s] discovery requests.”). Amazon’s

motion is accordingly DENIED as to Request for Production No. 2

but GRANTED as to Request No. 26. Butler is ORDERED to supplement

his response to Request No. 26 within fifteen days by providing

all responsive documents in his possession or control.

2. Medical Records

a. Request for Production Nos. 18, 19, and 23

Next, Amazon alleges that Butler failed to provide requested

medical records to “substantiate an injury, inability to work, or

. . . an [ADA] accommodation,” as well as to support any claims of

personal injury or mental or emotional distress. (See ECF No. 23

at PageID 221-22). Specifically, Amazon contends that Butler

failed to sufficiently respond to Request for Production Nos. 18,

19, and 23, which read:

[Request No.] 18. If you are seeking any damages for

personal injury or emotional distress, all Documents

prepared by any hospital, clinic, treatment center,

physician, specialist, psychiatrist, psychologist,

therapist, counselor, social worker, or other health

care provider who examined or treated you at any time

since January 1, 2014. To respond to this Request for

records within your possession, custody, or control,

please execute and return the Patient Authorization for

Release of Medical Records (attached as Exhibit C).

Please photocopy the necessary number of forms, fill out

the requested information, and sign and date each form.

[Request No.] 19. If you are seeking any damages for

personal injury or emotional distress, all Documents

relating to any prescription medications, including but

not limited to antidepressants, that have been

prescribed to you since January 1, 2014, continuing

through trial.

. . .

[Request No.] 23. All Documents relating to any claimed

mental and emotional distress.

(ECF No. 23-3 at PageID 278-79.) To Request Nos. 18 and 19, Butler

responded, “Plaintiff[’s] only documents relied on was and is [sic]

presented as exhibits in [his] civil complaint, but [I] will

provide doctor documents in my possession, and will authorize any

not in my custody during and after employment with Amazon only.”

(ECF No. 23-4 at PageID 309.) To Request No. 23, Butler similarly

responded that the “only documents relied on was and is [sic]

presented as exhibits in [his] civil complaint.” (Id. at PageID

310.)

As referenced in Request No. 18, Amazon attached to its

Requests for Production an authorization form that would permit

Amazon to “obtain records directly from Plaintiff’s medical

providers.” (ECF Nos. 23 at PageID 222; 23-7 at PageID 316.) The

“[s]pecific description of information to be used or disclosed”

reads:

Any and all medical and non-medical records, physician’s

records, surgeons’ records, reports, x-rays, CAT scans,

MRIs, tests, photographs, notes, disability ratings,

laboratory reports, discharge summaries, progress notes,

consultations, prescriptions, physicals and histories,

nurses’ notes, correspondence, prescription records,

medication records, orders for medication, therapists’

notes, insurance records, consent for treatment,

statements of account, bills, invoices, or any other

papers concerning any investigation, treatment,

examination, periods or stays of hospitalization,

confinement, diagnosis, testing, prognosis, or other

information pertaining to and concerning the physical

mental, emotional or any other condition, past or

present, of Thomas J. Butler which arose out of or is

related to your treatment of Thomas J. Butler. This

release shall extend to any medical or psychological

condition of Thomas J. Butler which is causally or

historically relevant to her physical, mental or

emotional condition.

This release specifically includes mental health

information, drug and alcohol abuse treatment

information, and communicable disease information,

including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), AIDS-

related complex (ARC) and acquired immunodeficiency

syndrome (AIDS), if contained in said medical record.

(ECF No. 23-1 at PageID 240.) Amazon does not list a date range on

the waiver form. (See id.)

Butler signed and returned a copy of the waiver on December

16, 2024, but modified the form in several ways. (ECF No. 23-7 at

PageID 316.) First, within the final sentence of the waiver

description, Butler “scratched out” reference to “communicable

disease information, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),

AIDS-related complex (ARC) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

(AIDS).” (ECF No. 23-7 at PageID 316; see also ECF No. 24 at PageID

322.) In his response brief, Butler argues that he made this

modification as an objection to Amazon having access to “any record

of my intimate sexual information, which is an overstepping of my

privacy.” (ECF No. 24 at PageID 322.) Second, Butler added language

to the waiver form appearing to limit its scope. To the

“description of information to be used or disclosed,” Butler wrote

“only about my on the job injury TB 12-16-24.” (ECF No. 23-7 at

PageID 316.) Butler also modified the “[r]eason for use or

disclosure of information” description to read: “This release is

made in connection with litigation involving the undersigned

individual. On the job injury at Amazon.” (Id. (modified language

in italics).)

In its motion to compel, Amazon argues that “Plaintiff cannot

unilaterally limit the scope of information Amazon is allowed to

discover under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26].” (ECF No. 23

at PageID 222.) Rather, Amazon contends that it is entitled to the

requested medical records because “[i]nformation about Plaintiff’s

medical conditions pre- and post-alleged injury are directly

relevant to whether Plaintiff suffered an injury that required an

accommodation or that impacted Plaintiff’s inability to work and

earn income.” (Id.) It argues that “Defendant must have the ability

to compare [Butler’s] medical condition pre- and post-alleged

injury to defend against [Butler’s] claims.” (Id. at PageID 223.)

Amazon further alleges that Butler’s responses were deficient

because he did not fill out a waiver for each of his medical

providers as instructed, let alone identify those providers in any

of his discovery responses. (ECF No. 27 at PageID 333.)

The court finds as an initial matter that records related to

Butler’s medical history before and after his alleged on-the-job

injury may be relevant to his failure to accommodate claim under

the ADA. However, certain objections to the scope of Amazon’s

requests are well-taken. First, Amazon has not demonstrated the

relevance of “communicable disease information” specifically

identified in its medical waiver. Indeed, the only physical injury

Butler alleges in his complaint is “extreme pain in his back” that

Butler claims necessitated a reasonable modification of his

working conditions. (See ECF No. 1 at PageID 5-7.) Amazon offers

no explanation of how information concerning communicable diseases

are relevant to the purported back injury that Butler claims was

the basis for his accommodation request.

Second, Amazon has not demonstrated how information regarding

Butler’s mental health treatment is relevant and proportional such

that the need for those records outweighs the danger of potentially

disclosing information protected by the psychotherapist-patient

privilege. “The Supreme Court, while acknowledging ‘the primary

assumption that there is a general duty to give what testimony one

is capable of giving,’ has found that the ‘privilege protecting

confidential communications between a psychotherapist and her

patient promotes sufficiently important interests to outweigh the

need for probative evidence[.]’” Myrtil v. Serra Chevrolet, No.

22-CV-2595-MSN-tmp, 2023 WL 4493717, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. July 12,

2023) (quoting Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1996))

(internal quotation marks omitted). In the Sixth Circuit, a party

waives the psychotherapist-patient privilege by placing their

mental health “at issue.” Id. (citing Simon v. Cook, 261 F. App’x

873, 886 (6th Cir. 2008)). Under the majority approach of courts

within this circuit, there are five occasions when a party places

their mental health “at issue,” thereby waiving the privilege:

(1) a tort claim is asserted for intentional infliction

or negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) an

allegation of a specific mental or psychiatric injury or

disorder is made; (3) a claim of unusually severe

emotional distress is made; (4) plaintiff intends to

offer expert testimony in support of a claim for

emotional distress damages; and/or (5) plaintiff

concedes that her mental health condition is in

controversy within the meaning of Rule 35.

Id. (quoting Santifer v. Inergy Auto. Sys., LLC, No. 5:15-cv-

11486, 2016 WL 1305221, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 4, 2016))

(additional citations omitted). However, a party does not waive

the psychotherapist-patient privilege by seeking damages for mere

“garden variety” emotional distress. Id. (citing Brahmamdan v.

Trihealth, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-152, 2021 WL 4260418, at *2 (S.D.

Ohio Sept. 20, 2021); Bose v. Rhodes College, No. 1:19-cv-02308-

JTF-tmp, 2017 WL 4479258, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 6, 2017);

Santifer, 2016 WL 1305221, at *2-3).

Having reviewed Butler’s complaint, the court finds no

indication that Butler has claimed anything beyond “garden

variety” emotional pain and suffering damages.6 Butler has not

brought a claim for intentional or negligent infliction of

emotional distress, alleged a specific psychiatric injury, or

given any indication that he intends to offer expert testimony in

support of his claim for “emotional pain [and] suffering.” (See

ECF No. 1 at PageID 50.) Moreover, Amazon has offered no argument

as to why Butler’s “mental health information, [or] drug and

alcohol abuse treatment information” are relevant or proportional

to the needs of the case. (See ECF No. 23-1 at PageID 240.) The

court therefore finds no reason justifying the discovery of

Butler’s mental health records.

However, to the extent that Butler intended to object to the

temporal scope of Amazon’s requests, the court declines to limit

Amazon to solely those medical records Butler deems related to his

alleged “on the job injury.” (See ECF No. 23-7 at PageID 316

(modifying medical waiver form to cover only information about

6The only reference whatsoever to Butler’s purported emotional

distress appears to be a claim, on the final page of Butler’s

complaint, for “punitive damages for future emotional pain

suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, [and] lose [sic] of

enjoyment of life.” (ECF No. 1 at PageID 50.)

Butler’s alleged “[o]n the job injury at Amazon”).) Amazon has

sufficiently demonstrated that Butler’s medical history pre- and

post-alleged injury are necessary for Amazon to evaluate Butler’s

accommodation request, “compare his medical condition pre- and

post-alleged injury,” and ultimately “defend against Plaintiff’s

claims.” (ECF No. 23 at PageID 222-23.) The court further finds

that Amazon’s limitation seeking only records from January 1, 2014,

to present is reasonable and proportional considering the needs of

the case. (See ECF No. 23-3 at PageID 278-79 (Request Nos. 18 and

19).)

Accordingly, Amazon’s motion is GRANTED in part with respect

to Request for Production Nos. 18 and 19 but DENIED as to Request

No. 23. Amazon is ORDERED to provide Butler, within five days of

the entry of this order, with a revised version of its prior

medical authorization form. The “specific description of

information to be used or disclosed” shall be updated to read:

Any and all medical and non-medical records, physician’s

records, surgeons’ records, reports, x-rays, CAT scans,

MRIs, tests, photographs, notes, disability ratings,

laboratory reports, discharge summaries, progress notes,

consultations, prescriptions, physicals and histories,

nurses’ notes, correspondence, prescription records,

medication records, orders for medication, insurance

records, consent for treatment, statements of account,

bills, invoices, or any other papers concerning any

investigation, treatment, examination, periods or stays

of hospitalization, confinement, diagnosis, testing,

prognosis, or other information pertaining to and

concerning the physical condition, past or present, of

Thomas J. Butler which arose out of or is related to

your treatment of Thomas J. Butler between January 1,

2014, to present day.

Butler is further ORDERED to return, within ten days of receipt

from Amazon, an executed waiver for each and every medical provider

from whom he received treatment between January 1, 2014, and

present, with the exception of mental health or other psychological

service providers. This limitation is imposed with the

understanding that Butler does not intend to present any evidence

of emotional distress beyond “garden variety” damages claims.

All records produced pursuant to the executed waivers shall

be initially reviewed only by defense counsel and their legal

staff. If any records inadvertently contain information related to

mental health or communicable disease diagnosis or treatment, that

information must be redacted by defense counsel before production

to Amazon, their experts, or other persons involved in this

litigation. Further, all records produced pursuant to such waivers

shall be destroyed at the conclusion of this litigation.

b. Interrogatory No. 18

Amazon additionally claims that Butler failed to respond to

Interrogatory No. 18, which reads:

Interrogatory No. 18: Describe in detail the nature of

all physical, psychological, mental, and emotional

ailment or injury You claim to have suffered as a result

of the incidents or conduct alleged in Your Complaint,

including but not limited to: the date each such ailment

or injury began; the date each such ailment abated or

ended; whether the ailment or injury was a pre-existing

condition that You believe was exacerbated by the acts

or omissions of Defendant, and, if so, the basis for

Your belief; the name and address of each physician,

psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, counselor,

health care professional, or social worker who examined

or treated You for such ailment or injury; the date of

each such examination or treatment; and the diagnosis,

prognosis, and/or treatment You received with respect to

each such treatment, ailment, or injury.

(ECF No. 23-2 at PageID 264.) Butler responded, “I was terminated

will not be provided an accommodation as requested by my doctor

once my return to Work in April 2022, according to my exhibits.”

(ECF No. 23-4 at PageID 296.)

The court finds that Butler’s answer to Interrogatory No. 18

is nonresponsive and does not otherwise comply with the

requirements of Rule 33(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4)

(requiring either “separate[] and full[]” responses to each

interrogatory, or objections “stated with specificity”). Butler’s

reference to previously filed “exhibits” also does not relieve him

of his obligation to respond in accordance with Rule 33. See Morgan

v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., No. 18-CV-2042-TLP-tmp, 2020 WL 4274586, at

*4 (W.D. Tenn. July 24, 2020), aff'd, 2020 WL 4917731 (W.D. Tenn.

Aug. 21, 2020) (“Furthermore, [defendant’s] ability to obtain the

information sought from alternative sources does not relieve

[plaintiff] of [his] obligation to respond in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).

Amazon’s Motion to Compel is accordingly GRANTED with respect

to Interrogatory No. 18, and Butler is ORDERED, within fifteen

days, to file an amended response. However, for the same reasons

explained above, Butler is not required to disclose information

related to mental health treatment by a “psychologist, therapist,

[or] counselor,” provided that Butler does not intend to present

evidence of emotional distress beyond his “garden variety” damages

claim.

3. Requests Supporting Damages and Mitigation

Amazon next argues that Butler failed to sufficiently respond

to several interrogatories and requests for production asking him

to “substantiat[e] damages generally,” including “any effort to

obtain new employment relevant to mitigation.” (ECF No. 23 at

PageID 221.) These include Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,

and 10, as well as Request for Production Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,

17, 21, and 22. (Id. at PageID 221-22 n.4, n.4, n.6.)

a. Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, and 10

As an initial matter, the court finds that Butler has

adequately responded to a handful of discovery requests within

this category. For example, Butler responded to Interrogatory Nos.

4 and 6 by asserting that the information requested simply does

not exist:

Interrogatory No. 4: If since June 20, 2023, You have

received unemployment compensation benefits and Your

damage claims or calculations include lost earnings,

reduced income, front pay, or back pay, state the

following:

a. dates during which You received unemployment

compensation; and

b. the total amount of unemployment compensation

that You have received to date[.]

[ANSWER]: Plaintiff since June 20, 2023, did not receive

any unemployment compensation.

. . .

Interrogatory No. 6: State the name and address of any

employment agency, other entity, or Person whose

services You used for purposes of seeking employment or

self-employment at any time since June 20, 2023.

[ANSWER]: NO employment agency(s) [sic].

(ECF No. 23-4 at PageID 291-92, 294.) “Because the court cannot

order a party to produce something that does not exist or is not

in its possession,” Amazon’s motion to compel is DENIED as to these

requests. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calcot, Ltd., No. 2:07-CV-

02405-BBD-dkv, 2009 WL 10699694, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 7, 2009).

The court likewise finds that Butler sufficiently complied

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b) in

his response to Interrogatory No. 10. That interrogatory

instructed Butler to “[i]dentify all actions you have taken to

mitigate the damages allegedly suffered in this matter.” (ECF No.

23-4 at PageID 294.) Butler responded, “separately and fully in

writing under oath,”

Praying, seeking reasonable employment that doesn’t

require any real painful work to my back. Found the solar

job, then my father let me use his car to travel, that

job provides room and board, but then I was laid off.

Later I took this lower paying job at auto parts store

presently employed at now.

(Id.); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). The court accordingly DENIES

Amazon’s motion with respect to Interrogatory No. 10.

b. Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9

The court next finds that Butler has not provided sufficient

responses to Amazon’s remaining interrogatories related to his

employment history and mitigation efforts. These requests include:

Interrogatory No. 2: With respect to each position of

employment that You have held since January 1, 2015,

state the following:

a. name and address of the employer;

b. the position held;

c. the name of Your supervisor;

d. the dates of employment;

e. the number of hours worked per week;

f. the hourly, weekly, or monthly rate of pay; and

g. Your reasons for leaving, if not still employed.

Interrogatory No. 3: With respect to each period of self-

employment You have engaged in and each period in which

You have provided services as an independent contractor

at any time since January 1, 2015:

a. describe the services provided in each period of

self-employment and/or work as an independent

contractor;

b. [i]dentify the party or parties with him You

contracted;

c. state the beginning and last date You commenced

self-employment or work as an independent

contractor; and

d. state the total amount of income You earned for

each period of self[-]employment and/or work as

an independent contractor.

. . .

Interrogatory No. 5: With respect to each position of

employment for which You have inquired, applied, or

interviewed since June 20, 2023, state the following:

a. the name and address of the employer or company;

b. the position for which You applied;

c. the date You applied;

d. the reason(s) You indicated You left Your

employment with Defendant;

e. the number of hours per week that the Person

holding that position would work;

f. the hourly, weekly, or monthly rate of pay;

g. benefits provided by the employer or company for

that particular position;

h. whether You were invited to interview for the

position and, if so, Your response;

i. whether and when You received an offer; and

j. if You rejected the offer, the reason for such

rejection.

. . .

Interrogatory No. 7: Describe all income, wages,

compensation, and employment benefits (including but not

limited to disability or social security benefits,

and/or workers’ compensation benefits) that You have

received or earned since June 20, 2023, the source of

each, the amount and nature of each, and the dates

received, including without limitation any investment or

other income and rental property or other business

income.

. . .

Interrogatory No. 9: For each type of damages, monetary

or otherwise, that You claim from Defendant in this

lawsuit, state the following and Identify all

Communications, records, or Documents that support them:

a. type of damage (e.g., lost income);

b. the amount of damages claimed;

c. how the amount claimed was calculated; and

d. as to the front pay damages asserted in Your

initial disclosures, the basis You base Your

contention that those are due to You from Amazon

and the facts upon which You ask the Court to

rely to calculate front pay.

(ECF No. 23-2 at PageID 248-55.)

Butler responded to this set of interrogatories with a range

of partial and incomplete answers. For example, in response to

Interrogatory No. 2, Butler wrote that he “currently works for

O’riellys [sic] Auto part store located in Memphis[,] Tennessee.”

(ECF No. 23-4 at PageID 291.) However, Butler failed to provide

several requested (and relevant) details, including the address of

his current employer, the exact dates of his employment, or his

current position held. (See id.) In response to Interrogatory No.

5, Butler also stated that he “worked out of town fixing solar

panels for about 3 months after Plaintiff was terminated wrongfully

from Amazon.” (Id. at PageID 292.) But he again failed to provide

any additional details regarding this position. Butler’s answers

to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, and 9 similarly addressed only portions

of Amazon’s inquiries while ignoring other information requested.

Moreover, Butler’s objections regarding the temporal scope of

these discovery requests are not well-taken. In response to

Interrogatory No. 2, Butler stated that “[t]his request . . .

[would] cause hardship on the Plaintiff, mainly because Plaintiff

was not employed with the defendant in 2015 thru [sic] 2019.” (Id.

at PageID 291.) He raises this same objection in his response to

Amazon’s motion, arguing that because “Plaintiff[’s] employment

started with the defendant in 2020,” employment information dating

back to 2015 is “burdensome and would cause the Plaintiff undue

hardship.” (ECF No. 24 at PageID 322.) In its reply, Amazon

contends that “[p]ast earning capacity is the best predictor of

future earning capacity,” and thus Butler’s prior employment

history is directly relevant to his claim of “over $1,000,000 in

economic damages,” including a potential award of front pay. (ECF

No. 27 at PageID 334-35.) Amazon also argues that this information

“would further be relevant if Plaintiff has ever filed for a

disability claim or sought ADA accommodations in the past and, if

so, how those cases resolved.” (Id. at PageID 335.) According to

Amazon, Butler’s work history from 2015 to present is therefore

“relevant, material, and could potentially lead to the discovery

of other relevant and material evidence.” (Id.)

The court finds that, on balance, Amazon has demonstrated

that these interrogatories are relevant and proportional to the

needs of the case. See Gunter v. Bemis Co., Inc., 906 F.3d 484,

490 (6th Cir. 2018) (affirming that evidence of plaintiff’s

employment history, skills, and education level were sufficient to

prove mitigation of damages in ADA discrimination case); Dickson

v. NPSG Glob., LLC, No. 20-2814-SHM-tmp, 2022 WL 1645080, at *2-3

(W.D. Tenn. May 24, 2022) (finding in employment discrimination

case that information regarding past and subsequent employers was

relevant to the issues of mitigation and any history of similar

claims filed by plaintiff); Beightler v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No.

2:07-02532-V, 2008 WL 11411823, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. June 19, 2008)

(deeming records related to plaintiff’s past employment and

efforts to obtain new employment relevant, in part, because front

pay and back pay were at issue). In light of this finding, and

Butler’s otherwise deficient responses, the court GRANTS Amazon’s

motion with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Butler

is ORDERED to supplement his responses within fifteen days of this

order, providing full and complete answers to Amazon’s requests

for information.

c. Request for Production Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16,

17, 21, and 22

Amazon also identifies several Requests for Production

regarding Butler’s employment history and mitigation efforts to

which Butler purportedly failed to respond. These include:

[Request No.] 13. All Documents relating to all employee

benefits, including any health, medical, or dental

insurance, for which you have been eligible since June

20, 2023.

[Request No.] 14. All Documents reflecting,

constituting, memorializing, or relating to your

efforts, whether successful or not, to obtain employment

or self-employment since June 20, 2023, including, but

not limited to, notes, diary entries, logs, resumes, job

applications, correspondence, job advertisements, job

postings, or job offers. To respond to this Request for

Documents under your control, please complete and return

a release of employment records authorization (attached

as Exhibit A) for every place you have inquired or

applied for a job since June 20, 2023. Please photocopy

the necessary number of forms, fill out the requested

information, and sign and date each form.

[Request No.] 15. All Documents that show the

compensation and benefits you have earned through

employment and self-employment since January 1, 2019,

including but not limited to all W-2 statements, Form

1099 statements, check stubs, benefit plan summaries,

benefit application Documents, and benefit termination

documents.

[Request No.] 16: All Documents relating to any claims

for unemployment compensation benefits, Social Security

disability benefits, workers’ compensation, or other

benefits you have made since June 20, 2023, including

but not limited to all Documents you submitted to or

received from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and all other Documents relating to your

unemployment compensation claim, and all Documents

relating to any benefits received by you since June 20,

2023. To respond to this Request for Documents under

your control, please complete and return the attached

authorization to release unemployment files (attached as

Exhibit B).

[Request No.] 17. All Documents related to any

employment you have had since January 1, 2019, excluding

Documents responsive to other requests, including but

not limited to applications for employment, performance

evaluations, disciplinary memoranda, written warnings,

personnel files, pay stubs, time sheets, and work

schedules. To respond to this Request for Documents

under your control, please complete and return a release

of employment records authorization (attached as Exhibit

A) for every employer since January 1, 2019. Please

photocopy the necessary number of forms, fill out the

requested information, and sign and date each form.

. . .

[Request No.] 21. All documents relating to your

damages.

[Request No.] 22. All Documents relating to your

efforts, if any, to mitigate your damages.

(ECF No. 23-2 at PageID 277-79.)

For the reasons explained above justifying Amazon’s related

interrogatories, the court finds that these Requests for

Production are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

Moreover, having reviewed Butler’s responses, the court again

finds that they are deficient. Butler’s repeated refrain that

“Plaintiff[’s] only documents relied on was and is [sic] presented

as exhibits in [his] civil complaint” does not satisfy his

obligation under Rule 34. See Merritt, 2025 WL 725751, at *3

(citing Provost, 2010 WL 396231, at *9).

Amazon’s Motion to Compel is thus GRANTED with respect to

Request for Production Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, and 22. Butler

is ORDERED to supplement his responses within fifteen days of this

order by providing all documents in his possession that are

responsive to each request. Butler is further ORDERED, in

compliance with Request Nos. 14 and 17, to sign and return an

executed employment records authorization form for each and every

employer of his since January 1, 2019. The court notes, however,

that Butler appears to indicate he has not received unemployment

compensation benefits since his termination from Amazon in June

2023. (See ECF No. 23-2 at PageID 291-92 (answering Interrogatory

No. 4).) Butler is therefore not required to submit an executed

unemployment waiver in compliance with Request No. 16 but must

nevertheless produce any responsive records related to “Social

Security disability benefits, workers’ compensation, or other

benefits” if applicable.

d. Request for Production No. 12

In addition to the above Requests for Production, Amazon seeks

to compel “copies of [Butler’s] complete federal and state income

tax returns including schedules and attachments for the years 2019,

2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 and continuing through trial.” (ECF No.

23-5 at PageID 307.) This information was sought in Amazon’s

Request for Production No. 12, to which Butler responded,

“Plaintiff will provide only relevant years during employment with

Amazon, [and] once gathered will provide 2 weeks from this

response.” (Id.) In their briefing of the instant motion, however,

neither party addressed whether Butler has produced copies of his

tax returns.

Although tax records “are relevant to both claims of lost

wages and proving mitigation measures,” the court is mindful of

“the cautionary approach other courts have taken to prevent

unnecessary disclosure of tax returns.” Reed v. Memphis Recovery

Ctrs., Inc., No. 21-2657-SHL-tmp, 2022 WL 2286465, at *3 (W.D.

Tenn. June 23, 2022) (quoting Dancy v. Lanxess Corp., No. 19-cv-

02690-SHL-tmp, 2020 WL 5262311, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 3, 2020)

and then Primrose Ret. Cmtys., LLC v. Omni Constr. Co., Inc., No.

1:18-mc-0130, 2019 WL 6771210, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2019)).

Thus, “without justification as to why [Butler’s] pre-employment

tax returns are relevant to any claim or defense,” Amazon cannot

meet its burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Id.

(quoting Dancy, 2020 WL 5262311, at *3 n.3) (citation modified).

Here, Amazon has not offered a specific explanation for why

Butler’s tax records from before his employment with Amazon are

relevant. Amazon’s motion with respect to Request No. 12 is

accordingly GRANTED in part. To the extent that he has not already

produced them, Butler is ORDERED, within fifteen days of this

order, to produce copies of his federal income tax returns for

only those years from the start of his employment at Amazon through

the present. Butler is not required to produce any state income

tax returns.

4. Requests Identifying Fact and Expert Witnesses

Finally, Amazon argues that Butler failed to provide

“information regarding fact and expert witness Plaintiff may rely

upon or other persons with information relevant to Plaintiff’s

claims.” (ECF No. 23 at PageID 221.) This information was sought

in Interrogatory Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 16, to which Butler responded

as follows:

Interrogatory No. 11: Identify each Person who You

believe may have knowledge or information about the

matters alleged in Your Complaint and/or who may give

testimony at trial about the matters alleged in Your

Complaint, and for each such Person/witness, describe

the knowledge or information he/she has.

[ANSWER]: I put that in my initial disclosures that I

sent to defendant.

Interrogatory No. 12: With respect to each Person whom

You intend to call as an expert witness at the trial of

this case, state the following:

a. the expert’s name and address;

b. the expert’s professional qualifications and

experience;

c. the substance of the facts and opinions to which

You expect or have asked the expert to testify;

and

d. a summary of the grounds for each opinion the

expert will give.

[ANSWER]: I intend to call the people or persons in my

initial disclosures. And the people defendant presented

in its disclosures.

Interrogatory No. 13: State the name of any other experts

who You retained for or specifically employed by You in

anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial,

even though You do not expect to call them as witnesses

or You have not yet decided whether to call them as

witnesses.

[ANSWER]: NO experts.

. . .

Interrogatory No. 16: Identify every Person who has

spoken to or communicated with You about Your

allegations of disability discrimination. For each such

Person, Identify and state when such discussions or

Communications took place, the manner or medium or such

Communication, and the contents of such Communications.

[ANSWER]: NO person other than EEOC. Also relying on the

people in my initial disclosures.

(ECF No. 23-4 at PageID 294-95.) Amazon additionally alleges that

Butler failed to sufficiently respond to its Request for Production

Nos. 24 and 25, which seek:

[Request No.] 24. All resumes and curriculum vitae of

all Persons you may call as a witness at trial to present

evidence under Rules 701, 702, 703, 704, and 705 of the

Federal Rules of Evidence, or have contacted about the

possibility of presenting such evidence at trial and all

such Documents required by such rules to be provided by

each such designated witness.

[Request No.] 25. All memoranda, reports,

correspondence, or other Documents (including all drafts

of such Documents), that you have sent to or received

from each Person whom you have contacted regarding the

possibility of presenting evidence under Rules 701, 702,

703, 704, and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or

whom you may call as a witness at trial to present such

evidence.

(ECF No. 23-3 at PageID 279.)

With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 16, the court first

finds that these requests are relevant and proportional for the

purposes of discovery. Second, the court finds that Butler’s

response to Interrogatory No. 11 is sufficient. But the court finds

that Butler’s answer to Interrogatory No. 16 is not sufficient

under the response standard set by Rule 33(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P.

33(b)(3)-(4). As explained above, “[Amazon’s] ability to obtain

the information sought from alternative sources does not relieve

[Butler] of [his] obligation to respond in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Morgan, 2020 WL 4274586, at *4.

Amazon’s motion is accordingly DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 11

but GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 16. Butler is ORDERED to

supplement his response to Interrogatory No. 16 within fifteen

days.

However, the court declines to grant Amazon’s motion with

respect to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 and Request for Production

Nos. 24 and 25. Butler has already represented that he does not

intend to present expert testimony at trial, and even if he did,

Butler would be obligated to disclose those witnesses’ identities

and expert reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26 and the scheduling order. (ECF No. 23-4 at PageID

294); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) (“[A] party must disclose to

the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial

to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 703, or

705.”). Furthermore, Amazon has not offered any reason as to why

it should be entitled to records of persons Butler may have

contacted about the mere “possibility” of presenting expert

testimony. The court thus DENIES Amazon’s motion as to

Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 and Request for Production Nos. 24

and 25.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Amazon’s Motion for Dismissal as

a Rule 37 Sanction is DENIED. Amazon’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED

in part consistent with the rulings and directives described above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Tu M. Pham

TU M. PHAM

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

July 2, 2025

Date