Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins

In April 1992, Burt Sempier (Plaintiff), brought suit against his employer Johnson & Higgins (Defendant) pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). During discovery, Plaintiff served two sets of interrogatories on Defendant, in addition to several document requests. Defendant failed to respond to a number of the discovery demands. Plaintiff sought an order from the magistrate judge compelling Defendant’s response. The magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion and Plaintiff appealed to the district court. The district court vacated the magistrate judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion and remanded the matter. On remand, the magistrate judge excused Defendant from answering the first two sets of interrogatories and required Plaintiff to serve a third set of interrogatories. Defendant failed to respond to most of Plaintiff’s third set of interrogatories. Plaintiff sought an order to compel, which the magistrate judge denied. Instead, the court prepared its own bill of particulars and required Defendant to respond to it. On appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s order regarding the bill of particulars. Defendant submitted responses to the bill of particulars, which Plaintiff believed were inadequate. Plaintiff thus filed another motion to compel. Defendant moved the district court for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADEA claim and prevailed. Plaintiff appealed both the grant of summary judgment and the substitution of Plaintiff’s interrogatories for the court’s bill of particulars.