Case No. 10-22952-CIV-HUCK/O'SULLIVAN.
September 14, 2010
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Non-Party United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued from the Southern District of Florida (DE # 1, 8/16/10). Having held a hearing in this matter and having considered the applicable filings and law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Non-Party United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued from the Southern District of Florida (DE # 1, 8/16/10) is GRANTED. The defendant has not proffered any conflict between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) reports and any facts known to the defendant. Pursuant to Barfield v. Orange County, 911 F.2d 644, 650 (11th Cir. 1990), the Court may consider the trustworthiness of the EEOC report in determining admissibility. The defendant may attack the "trustworthiness" of the EEOC report through the non-privileged documents that have been provided to the defendant by the EEOC. "The best evidence of the of the factual information regarding the investigation is in the non-privileged documents in the charge file, not the testimony" of the investigator. Evans v. Woolworth, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19679, *2 (S.D. Fla. 1998). To compel the deposition of the investigator would cause an undue burden to be placed on the EEOC. Id. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before September 21, 2010, the EEOC shall provide the defendant with a typed transcription of the investigator's notes and the meanings of the abbreviations used by the investigator in the report and the notes. The defendant argued that there were ambiguities in the investigator's report and notes, but failed to demonstrate to the Court that these ambiguities would persist after being provided with the typed transcription of the investigator's notes and the meanings of the abbreviations used by the investigator.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Florida this 14th day of September, 2010.