In Transue v. Davis County, plaintiff Markie Transue alleges that the county and former Chief Arnold Butcher discriminated against her during her employment, specifically through the mishandling of her sexual harassment complaints.
Transue sought discovery regarding how the defendants handled other complaints of gender-based misconduct during the relevant time period. She requested information and documents relating to employee complaints of sexual harassment or other gender-based misconduct, as well as investigation materials reviewed or created regarding those complaints.
In response to Transue’s interrogatories and requests for production, the defendants provided only summary charts of these complaints. They argued that one chart provided nearly all the information requested and that Chief Butcher had provided detailed testimony about almost every investigation.
The defendants contended that producing the underlying investigation materials and reports would require substantial redaction for employee and witness privacy and would be irrelevant to the dispute. They further argued that Transue’s requests reflected a fishing expedition and were unduly burdensome.
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg rejected these arguments, noting that the litigation centers on the alleged disparate handling of Transue’s complaints compared to those of male employees. The court held that documents relating to those complaints and investigations are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
Judge Oberg ruled that the defendants cannot simply create summarizing charts while withholding documents responsive to document requests. She stated that witness testimony is not a sufficient substitute for production, as Transue is entitled to assess relevant materials and test witness testimony.
The court found that the defendants failed to show that reviewing and redacting "hundreds of pages" constituted an undue burden. The defendants are ordered to produce all documents underlying the complaints in the charts they created, including complaints, investigation reports, and documentation of investigation outcomes, by May 5, 2026.
While granting the motion to compel, the court denied Transue’s request for attorneys’ fees. The court determined the defendants’ position was substantially justified because they made a colorable argument regarding the burden of production.