Judge William Skretny
Named in a former female employee's EEOC complaint asserting sexual harassment and retaliation violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, John W. Danforth Group Inc. (Petitioner) anticipates being named a defendant in her discrimination suit. On receiving the EEOC complaint Petitioner sought to preserve relevant information. A male coworker—and "Facebook friend"—of the complainant refused to provide information from his personal mobile phone. Based on his misrepresentation about communications with the complainant, Petitioner argued that an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 was needed to prevent his deletion or destruction of potentially relevant information. Although the EEOC complaint established a likelihood that it will be a party in a Title VII action the court found Petitioner did not show a Rule 27 order needed to prevent a failure or delay of justice. Its generalized statement of concern was insufficient to warrant pre-complaint intervention under Rule 27. Mistrust is common in the anticipation of any litigation. To grant relief on mere generalized concerns could impermissibly widen the scope of Rule 27's limited application.
