United States District Court, District of Colorado
Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge
This matter arises on the following:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. # 33];
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Restrict Access [Doc. # 35] (the “First Motion to Restrict Access”); and
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Restrict Access [Doc. # 43] (the “Second Motion to Restrict Access”).
The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 33] is GRANTED. The Motions to Restrict Access [Doc. ## 35 and 43] are DENIED.
The plaintiff was employed as an account manager for Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (“STI”), and its predecessor corporation, SPATIALInfo, Inc. His compensation package included commissions on sales. The plaintiff was terminated from his employment on February 14, 2014, at a time when he alleges that he was working on six sales for which he claims to be due commissions, including sales to Comcast Western Division, Charter Communications, Mediacom Communications, IMMCO, Construction CAD Solutions, and Click!.
At issue here are two interrogatories and three requests for production. Interrogatory 7 requests the following information:
7. With regard to the deal outlined in the Complaint dealing with Comcast, state with specificity if this deal has funded, will fund in the near future, or will not fund at all. If this deal may fund in the future to any extent, please indicate the terms of the present negotiations, and list the names and addresses of all individuals involved in the negotiation process with both Synchronoss and Comcast.
The defendant objected to Interrogatory 7 as “vague and ambiguous as to the term ‘deal’” and as calling for speculation. Notwithstanding its objections, the defendant stated that “Comcast has not made a purchase with Synchronoss since Plaintiff’s termination of employment.” In its Response in Opposition to the Motion to Compel [Doc. # 41], the defendant also argued that the discovery is irrelevant because:
Under Colorado law, the issue of if and when an employee earns a commission is a matter of contract between the employer and the employee. While the statute has been held in some instances to apply to payments becoming due after the date of discharge, those instances are limited to situations where “future payments have been ‘earned, ’ i.e., they are ‘vested and determinable, ’ at the time of the employee’s termination.
Id. at 7 (internal citations omitted).
The parties dispute whether there is a contract between them concerning the payment of commissions. In any event, the defendant’s argument based on Colorado law puts the cart before the horse. Whether commissions are owed is the central issue in this case, and the status of the sales underlying the plaintiff’s claims is relevant until there is a determination that the commissions are not owed, which has not occurred.
I disagree that the term “deal” as it is used in Interrogatory 7 is vague--the defendant’s Response makes clear that it knows precisely what the interrogatory concerns, and ...