UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

“ Touhy contests the district court's determination that Document Request 14 and Interrogatory 10 were overly broad. The former demanded production of all manuals for any Walgreen's computer systems and programs that might house information about Ms. Touhy; the latter asked Walgreen to identify every person involved in the design and maintenance of those systems. On appeal, however, Ms. Touhy does not attempt to defend these requests as written. Rather, she now seeks only a (recent) computer manual and only one person with knowledge of the Walgreen computer system. ”

“ Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir. 1994) (no abuse of discretion where "privacy interests, coupled with [the district court's] determination to keep the trial focused . . . , justified limiting [plaintiff's discovery of] personnel files") . This is not to say personnel files are categorically out-of-bounds. By way of example only, had Ms. Touhy issued a more narrowly targeted request focused only on documents (whether from the personnel file or elsewhere) that might indicate disciplinary action against Ms. Whitlock after Ms. Touhy filed suit, we would face a very different question. ”

“ Touhy's condition at that time. Finally, Ms. Whitlock's testimony that she knew that Mr. Abrams at some point identified her as his source of information provides no basis to infer that she actually was the source given that she also testified that it was counsel for Walgreen – not Ms. Frazier or Mr. Abrams – who informed Ms. Whitlock that Mr. Abrams had previously identified her as his source.
To be sure, the circumstantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Abrams and Ms. Whitlock are sufficiently connected to one another socially – primarily by way of Ms. ”

“ Second, even putting aside the proffered hearsay statement, Ms. Touhy submits that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in the record for her claims to survive summary judgment. Among other things, Ms. Touhy notes, the record establishes that: Ms. Whitlock and Ms. Frazier were good friends; Ms. Frazier was Mr. Abrams's girlfriend; Ms. Frazier herself knew about Ms. Touhy's condition (as revealed by her hostile email) ; Mr. Abrams knew Ms. Whitlock independently because he previously worked with Ms. Whitlock's husband and had rented a house from Mr. ”

“ Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) ; Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 949 (10th Cir. 1990) . The various pieces of circumstantial evidence put forward by Ms. Touhy do not pass this threshold. ”

“ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (b) (2) (C) ; see also, e.g., Cleveland v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 985 F.2d 1438, 1449-50 (10th Cir. 1993) ; King v. PA Consulting Group, Inc., 485 F.3d 577, 591 (10th Cir. 2007) . ”