Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McKenna v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co.

February 5, 2007

KEVIN H. MCKENNA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Marbley

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Kevin H. McKenna, filed this action against Nestle Purina PetCare Company, his former employer. He asserts that he was discharged after complaining of sexual harassment by a co-worker. The case is currently before the Court to consider a number of motions which the parties have filed and which relate to procedural matters including the pleadings and the conduct of discovery. The Court will describe each motion below as well as the disposition to be made of that motion. A separate order will issue addressing Mr. McKenna's motion to stay this litigation.

I.

A brief factual background is helpful to put each of the pending motions into context. According to Mr. McKenna's complaint, he advised the human resources manager at his workplace, Carol Kagenski, on August 31, 2004 that he was being sexually harassed by a co-worker named Nancy Goss. He alleges that he informed his immediate supervisor, Mitzi Link, of the same information on September 17, 2004, and that he advised both Ms. Kagenski and Ms. Link that he feared for his safety and the safety of his co-workers based upon Ms. Goss's conduct. Ms. Goss's employment was terminated shortly thereafter.

Apparently as a result of investigating Ms. Goss's conduct, Nestle began an investigation of the conduct of two other employees, Mr. McKenna and Lisa Ellis. On October 14, 2004, Mr. McKenna's employment was terminated because, according to Nestle, he violated its electronic communications policy based upon the content of certain e-mails which he had sent. Ms. Ellis was also disciplined, but she was suspended rather than discharged. Mr. McKenna claims in his complaint that the reasons given for his discharge were pretextual and that the real reason Nestle discharged him was in retaliation for his having complained about sexual harassment in the workplace. He seeks relief in this Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5 et seq.

II.

Before turning to a discussion of each of the pending motions, the Court notes that the undersigned Magistrate Judge has held numerous conferences with Mr. McKenna and counsel for Nestle. The Court had concluded, as a result of those conferences, that many of the issues raised by the discovery-related motions had been satisfactorily resolved and that the parties were in a position to complete discovery without the need for further guidance from the Court. However, the parties recently advised the Court that rulings are necessary before discovery can be completed. Additionally, all pending discovery has been postponed while the Court considers the merits of the motion to stay. The following rulings will, hopefully, provide the parties with additional and necessary guidance when discovery resumes.

III.

The Court turns first to document #19, which is a motion filed by Mr. McKenna to strike document #18. Document #18 was a memorandum filed by Nestle in response to one of Mr. McKenna's previous motions. According to Mr. McKenna, #18 was filed after the Court-established deadline for filing the document (albeit only one day after) and contains a number of false statements concerning the facts surrounding Ms. Goss's suspension and termination as well as other facts relating to the background of this case. In response, Nestle asserts that the one-day delay in filing the document was due to a clerical error and notes that it was served on Mr. McKenna by the due date. In response, Mr. McKenna continues to argue vehemently that the factual portion of the memorandum contains many misstatements and should be stricken for that reason.

The Court accepts Nestle's explanation that the document was filed a day late due to a clerical error. Further, the Court has already ruled on the merits of the motion to which #18 was a response. That ruling did not require the Court to credit those factual statements set forth in #18. The Court notes that the facts of this case will ultimately be determined through either a summary judgment process or through trial, and neither of those processes will be affected by the statements set forth in #18. To the extent that Mr. McKenna asserts that Nestle's attorneys made factual statements in #18 which were unsupported by any evidence, the Court has had the occasion to review other filings in this case and notes that most of the statements set forth in #18 appear to be the version of the events set forth by Nancy Goss. The Court understands that there may ultimately be a substantial controversy over whether Ms. Goss's recitation of these events is true. Nonetheless, it does not appear that Nestle or its counsel acted in bad faith in providing this statement of facts to the Court. For all of those reasons, the Court concludes that the motion to strike is not well-taken and it will be denied.

IV.

The next motion pending is document #23, a motion for protective order filed by Nestle on April 5, 2006. The Court concludes that this motion was resolved as a result of discussions held at a discovery conference and it will be denied as moot.

V.

The Court turns next to two related motions. On April 14, 2006, Mr. McKenna filed a motion (#25) asking the Court to deem his requests for admissions which were served on March 6, 2006 to be deemed admitted because Nestle had not responded to them. On May 4, 2006, Nestle filed a motion (#28) asking the Court to strike Mr. McKenna's motion. The primary issued raised by these two motions is whether the Court directed Nestle to respond to the requests for admissions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.