What information is an employer entitled to when defending decisions to terminate  employment? In Witham v. The Hershey Co.,  defendant,  The Hershey Company (“the Defendant”) terminated plaintiff, Christopher Witham (“the Plaintiff”) for failure to become vaccinated after his request for religious accommodation was denied.  The Plaintiff filed suit and as part of the discovery process, the Defendant requested all communications regarding Witham’s personal, political, and religious beliefs pertaining to COVID-19 and vaccines, including related meta data. The Plaintiff objected to the Defendant’s  requests for information as overly broad and irrelevant. The Defendant brought a motion to compel production of information. The Court granted the Defendant’s motion and issued an order to compel discovery in September 2024 (“Order to Compel”).

Several months later, the Defendant was unsatisfied with the Plaintiff’s production and in December 2024 requested enforcement of the order to compel. In February 2025, the court granted the Defendant’s motion to enforce the Order to Compel (“Order to Enforce”). The Plaintiff disputed the order, raising objections of breadth and relevancy previously asserted and additional objections to the production of meta data and the temporal scope which included communications created or sent after his termination. The Court found the Plaintiff could not overcome untimely objections to the Order to Compel by refusing compliance and then raising additional discovery disputes as objections to the Order to Enforce.

The Court further found the Plaintiff’s initial challenge to the temporal scope as asserted in his objection to the Order to Compel was not “stated with specificity” sufficient to tie it to Defendant’s request for communications sent and received after termination of the Plaintiff’s employment. Accordingly, the Court concluded those objections were waived as untimely and could not be resurrected with more specificity as objections to the Motion to Enforce.

Finally, the Court in finding the scope of discovery was proper, explained that discovery is an investigatory process intended to yield relevant information, and assist parties in evaluation of the case and preparation for trial. Questions as to whether the information requested is admissible evidence or supports either party’s theory of the case are not considerations for purposes of proper scope.

This case enforces the broad spectrum of information available to assist Employers in both the evaluation and potential settlement of employment termination disputes. If you have questions regarding decisions to terminate and supporting documentation, contact Wiley Reber Law, for advice that works.