# Opposition Brief — Coleman v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386013_0369%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1997 - **Citation:** 520 U.S. 1211 ## Text No. 96-1467 é F supreme Court, U.S. | a APR 7 1997 IN THE Supreme Court of the Hnited LZ OCTOBER TERM, 1996 ia all JAMES W. COLEMAN, PH.D., Petitioner, —_—_Vi— JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC., Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION JOHN W. OHLWEILER (Counsel of Record) SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT (a partnership which includes professional corporations) 425 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017-3954 (212) 455-2000 EDWIN S. HOPSON WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS Citizens Plaza Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 589-5235 Attorneys for Respondent ROE oa TR Ne roe eR IE Ry ca NCR la BIR Pl sa AIT ERRNO REI NL RNY SOR ‘ ¥ sa os ODEON LRTI Meee PerPT ge OR TET Fe we LET [A in hl er oN Pay PRM INE EF i ae ee es oii ee i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether this Court should exercise its discretionary juris- diction to review by writ of certiorari an action in which the District Court found, after a trial on the merits in which no evidence was denied admittance by the court, that Petitioner had failed to prove that he had suffered intentional discrim- ination or retaliation. Whether this Court should exercise its discretionary juris- diction to review by writ of certiorari discovery-related deci- sions of the District Court which were expressly found by the Court of Appeals to have not constituted an abuse of that Court’s discretion regarding discovery matters. il TABLE OF CONTENTS QUES TIONS PRESEN TRE? «. cccyidcvcedessudpanxepnctes i STATEMENT. CF SE5S CARB ira cecc tcdnacincacedeness 2 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION.......... 7 I. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on Petitioner’s discovery-related WO ORE oo. kien bp ck eeed os Weasel ee 7 II. Petitioner’s claims regarding his motion to amend his complaint to add a state law claim for emotional and mental damages, and his motion to reconsider his constructive discharge claim, have been made moot by the findings of the District Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Seagram did not intentionally discriminate or retaliate against Petitioner on the basis of RES FRGO. co. c5 wes ductkincacesccns 12 CONCLUSION... sciswscaaedaseuancuatet ak ccedoneees 16 APPENDIX Memorandum Opinion of the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, Entered June 27, 1995.................. A-l Affidavit of Ann Giambusso, sworn to on September US. TORS idedk cavateecsiccseeoaeee Sar A-18 ill TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases PAGE Darnell v. Campbell Cty. Fiscal Court, 731 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Ky. 1990), aff’d, 924 F.2d 1057 (6th CE) REDS EE aaa Ye a Aenea aS 13 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178-182 (1962)............. 14 General Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 F.2d 1119 Oa nS EPCERE ASAE Sc Ua a 14 Harris v. Chipman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. BO9G) i. eck 8 Herring v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 894 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1016 (1990)... 8 Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Virginia, Inc., 43 F.3d 922 (4th Cir. 3s eee 8 Lynch v. Freeman, 817 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1987)....... 13 Plott v. General Motors Corp., Packard Elec. Div., 71 F.3d 1190 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. Es BS NEIRE CORE ag ane Ae eR 7,8 Semco, Inc. v. Amcast, Inc., 52 F.3d 108 (6th Cir. REE REE Syck CR ea GA aR SO et a 7,14 Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 ERR cea es ss zg Wilson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 932 F.2d 510 SU I eh org at es 13 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 4C1 I re Se es nt ie ee 14 Statutes pmeicn Y CIVE Mights ACt. oo... os cece oes vececcucecs 12 Rule 29.1 of the Supreme Court Rules................. I Lye SORRY RED eee PaaS IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1996 No. 96-1407 I reviewed outside counsel’s planned response to the Second Motion to Compel in the context of my own review of Company files and found that all documents in Seagram’s current possession, custody and control responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests that formed the basis of his Second Motion to Com- pel had been produced to Plaintiff. = - Dr. Bluhm had retired from Seagram by the time the Company received Plaintiff's Requests for Admission. Dr. Bluhm’s personal files were as of this date comprised of work-related material completed by Dr. Bluhm during his tenure as Manager of the Research and Development Department in White Plains, i.e., they contained no pre-relocation employee evaluations or other personal documents responsive to Plain- tiff’s discovery requests. 3 Demand Nos. 2, 4 and 6 of Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel form the substance of the instant Motion For Ruling On Omissions. A-24 14. Specifically, in response to Demand No. 2 of Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel, I verified that Seagram has no “performance summary” forms and “supervisor’s notes”, which are not official Company documents, for Doctors Gieger and Hirt as those terms have been defined in the con- text of this proceeding. In fact, Plaintiff has never requested the production of the official Company Personnel Files for either of these individuals. (See Ohlweiler Affidavit, 423 and footnote 8.) 15. I verified that Seagram has already produced to Plain- tiff all of the personnel files within Seagram’s possession and control that wouid contain performance evaluations on indi- viduals identified in Demand No. 4 of Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel. 16. Finally, with respect to Demand No. 6 of Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel, I verified that, as was explained to Plaintiff in Seagram’s responses to both Plaintiff’s First and Second Request for Documents, since 1983 Seagram has not had any personnel manual or other comprehensive document setting forth Company employment policies or practices responsive to Plaintiff’s request. As such, it is the Company’s belief that it has complied in a fully responsive manner with respect to Plaintiff’s requests which complies the basis of Demand No. 6. (See 9 6-7, supra) 17. When, on June 11, 1993, the Court ordered Seagram “to produce for inspection within (30) days of the date of entry of this order at the offices of its local counsel. . . the ‘personnel records’ of the following former or current employees of the defendant : [Ruf], Bailey, Wagener, Maisch, Weber, Bronsky, Wolfram, Baldwin, Coffey, Panek, Scalf, Sanders, Bosworth, Wathen, Luther and Wang,” I directed that another search of Seagram facilities be completed similar to the search described in the preceding Paragraphs 10 through 12. I directed that the original Company Personnel Files, and any unofficial personnel-related material located with respect to the named individuals, be gathered and forwarded to Defendant’s counsel, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, even A-25 though the content of these files had for the most part already been produced to the Plaintiff. The original documents were produced for Plaintiff’s review and copying in Louisville on July 9, 1993. 18. Seagram is not now, nor has it ever, wilfully concealed from Plaintiff any Company document responsive to any of his requests for documents which form the basis of the Mouions currently pending before the Court herein. Rather, at substantial expense to the Company, I have directed on no less than four (4) separate occasions that searches be con- ducted at Seagram facilities either known, or believed to be reasonably likely to contain the employee records sought by Plaintiff throughout this proceeding. On each occasion, I for- warded all responsive material yielded by the respective searches to Seagram’s counsel, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, which in turn produced the material to Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff's own belief, unsubstantiated in fact, that Seagram possesses additional discoverable material simply is untrue. 19. Seagram has produced (i) all documents relating to Plaintiff’s job performance, (ii) all files maintained by Dr. Bluhm on the employees set forth in Plaintiff’s September 6, 1989 letter, and (ili) all personnel files requested by Plaintiff on other current and former Seagram employees in Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production which are within the possession, custody or control of the Company. Further, Seagram has complied in a fully respon- sive manner to Plaintiff’s Production Request No. 12 of his Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production relating to copies of defendant’s generally applicable per- sonnel practices and procedures. 4 The only documents contained in those files not previously pro- duced to Plaintiff were documents placed in the files after they had been produced and which pertained primarily to benefits. A-26 /s/ ANN M. GIAMBUSSO Ann M. Giambusso Sworn to before me this 15th day of September, 1993. /s/ KAREN E. MOLONEY Notary Public --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386013_0369%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.