Why Discovery Can Feel Invasive But Still Be Required
Sue your employer for race/color discrimination, sexual harassment, or age discrimination, and something deeply annoying happens: the employer gets to investigate you. Documents. Written questions. Witnesses. A deposition. Information you may consider personal. If you filed an employment discrimination or wrongful termination lawsuit expecting discovery to be a one-way interrogation of the bad guys, federal court has some disappointing news.
Discovery is a two-way street. And there is no express lane for the person who filed the lawsuit.
Michael Dean Williams learned that lesson after suing his former employer, Crystal Flash Co., and three managers. Williams, proceeding pro se, alleged that a coworker repeatedly assaulted and harassed him during a 420-day period and that the defendants ignored his complaints and protected the coworker because of race. The District Court screened Williams’s complaint, threw out some claims, but allowed his Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 retaliation and racially hostile-work-environment claims to proceed.
Read that again. Williams had Title VII race discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims still alive in federal court.
Then discovery arrived.
Crystal Flash served discovery requests and sought Williams’s deposition. Williams did not provide his required initial disclosures, witness lists, or exhibit lists. He did not answer the company’s discovery requests. And he told defense counsel he did not intend to sit for a deposition.
Then came perhaps the least advisable AI-assisted discovery strategy yet preserved in a federal appellate decision.
Defense counsel asked whether Williams would agree that Crystal Flash could file a motion asking the judge to compel him to provide the discovery he had refused to give. Williams responded: “I’m supposed to sign-off on trusting you in Discovery[?] [AI] puts that at a 10 on the BullShit Meter.”
There were two problems with that approach.
First, Williams did not need to trust Crystal Flash’s lawyer. Opposing lawyers are called opposing lawyers for a reason. Discovery has rules for deciding what must be disclosed and procedures for challenging requests that go too far.
Second, AI does not outrank a federal judge.
In Williams v. Crystal Flash Co., No. 25-2108, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 23632 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Williams’s lawsuit with prejudice after repeated discovery violations and court warnings. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that his conduct reflected “a willful intent to thwart the case proceedings or, at the very least, reckless disregard” for the consequences of his noncompliance.
Williams went into discovery with surviving Title VII claims. He came out without a case. No race discrimination case. No retaliation case. No wrongful termination case. Nothing. And it was not because he lost because there were not facts or evidence to prove his case. He lost because he did not understand the court’s discovery rules and opted to go it alone instead of getting the best employee’s rights lawyer near him to help.
That is one hell of a hard discovery lesson.
Legal Takeaways
- Discovery is required, but it is not unlimited. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes sanctions, including dismissal, when a party fails to comply with a discovery order. An employee can properly challenge disputed discovery; refusing to participate is something very different.
- Being pro se does not make discovery optional. Williams argued that his failures resulted from inexperience and excusable neglect rather than willfulness or bad faith. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal after considering his repeated refusal to comply despite warnings and additional opportunities.
- AI can help someone learn, but it does not excuse violating discovery obligations or court orders. Williams told the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that he used “AI tools” to learn procedure; the Court nevertheless held that the record did not show a good-faith effort to comply.
Can I Refuse Discovery That Feels Too Personal Or Invasive?
No. An employee cannot refuse discovery just because it feels personal or invasive. But the employer does not get everything it asks for either. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 puts limits on discovery, and those limits—not discomfort—decide what must be produced.
Rule 26(b)(1) generally allows discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. That can include deeply personal information. If an employee puts lost wages, emotional harm, discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination at issue, information bearing on those claims or the employer’s defenses may become fair game.
Private does not mean privileged. Personal does not mean irrelevant. And embarrassing does not mean undiscoverable.
But filing an employment lawsuit does not put your entire private life on clearance at Costco. Relevance has limits. So does proportionality. Privileged information receives separate protection. And Rule 26(c) allows a party to seek a protective order against discovery that would cause, among other things, “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
That gives an employee options when the employer reaches too far. Object to the request. Assert a privilege when one applies. Negotiate a narrower request. Seek appropriate protection from the judge. The Federal Rules provide a vocabulary for saying no. “I don’t feel like answering” is not in it.
The distinction is simple:
An objection challenges the employer’s right to the information. A refusal challenges the authority of the process itself.
Williams chose refusal. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that despite repeated warnings and opportunities, he never supplied initial disclosures, witness lists, exhibits, or discovery responses and refused to appear for his deposition. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that his conduct reflected “a willful intent to thwart the case proceedings or, at the very least, reckless disregard” for their progress.
That distinction ultimately cost him his case.
Discovery can invade your privacy without violating the rules. A good employment lawyer knows the difference between discovery you dislike and discovery the employer has no right to demand.
Practical Tip: If a discovery request seeks medical records, private messages, financial information, social-media content, or other personal material, do not ignore it or destroy anything. Give the exact request to your employment attorney before the deadline so the lawyer can determine whether to answer, object, assert privilege, negotiate a narrower request, or seek court protection.
Best Employment Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:
What Should I Expect During Discovery In A Wrongful Termination Case?
Expect written questions, document requests, identification of witnesses and evidence, and usually a deposition. Discovery is where a wrongful termination or employment discrimination lawsuit moves from allegations to proof. The complaint tells your story. Discovery asks whether the evidence backs it up.
The Federal Rules provide several basic tools.
Initial disclosures under Rule 26(a) require parties to identify certain witnesses, documents, electronically stored information, and other information supporting their claims or defenses without waiting to be asked. No hide-and-seek required.
Interrogatories under Rule 33 are written questions answered under oath. They lock down facts, witnesses, damages, dates, and positions. That matters when someone’s version of events develops a suspicious amount of creativity six months later.
Requests for production under Rule 34 seek documents and electronically stored information. Emails. Texts. Photos. Policies. Personnel records. Calendars. Electronic communications. Discovery loves receipts.
Requests for admission under Rule 36 force a party to admit or deny specific propositions. Used well, they shrink the battlefield by eliminating facts nobody can seriously dispute.
Depositions under Rule 30 are live testimony under oath. Opposing counsel asks the questions, and the answers become part of the record. A deposition is not a conversation. There is no edit button afterward.
And these tools work both ways. The employer gets to test the employee’s allegations. The employee’s attorney gets to test the employer’s story. Who actually decided to fire you? What did they know? What documents did they create? Did they follow their own policies? Did someone give a different explanation before the lawsuit? Discovery is where an employer’s neat explanation can collide with its own documents and witnesses.
Williams spent his energy elsewhere. The District Court counted 15 meritless motions and two frivolous appeals of nonfinal orders “instead of engaging in discovery.”
Talk about working hard at the wrong job.
In an employment case, allegations get you into the fight. Discovery gives you the evidence to win it.
Practical Tip: Preserve potentially relevant texts, emails, photos, calendars, and employment records, including evidence you think hurts your case. Give it to your employment lawyer. A bad document your attorney sees early can be planned for; the same document appearing for the first time during your deposition can become an ambush.
Best Employee’s Rights Attorney Blogs on Point:
Can I Trust AI To Tell Me What To Do In My Employment Lawsuit?
No. AI can help you understand litigation. Do not trust it to run your litigation. When discovery, deadlines, objections, or court orders are involved, you need legal judgment—not an answer that confirms what you already want to believe.
Williams supplied the cautionary tale himself. On appeal, he argued that he acted in good faith and used “AI tools” to learn court rules and procedures. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the record does not reflect any good faith effort to comply with discovery or the court’s orders.”
Then came the BullShit Meter.
Defense counsel asked whether Williams would concur in a motion to compel his overdue discovery responses. Williams responded: “I’m supposed to sign-off on trusting you in Discovery[?] [AI] puts that at a 10 on the BullShit Meter.”
Maybe discovery felt like bullshit. That is not the legal standard.
There is no BullShit Meter in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No reasonably competent employment lawyer responds to discovery with: Objection. Bullshit. The lawyer asks whether the request is relevant, proportional, privileged, overbroad, unduly burdensome, or otherwise objectionable under the rules. If there is a proper objection, make it. If there isn’t, the answer may be: I know you hate this, but you have to respond.
AI responds to the question and context you give it. Frame the problem as “Why is this discovery bullshit?” and you should not confuse a helpful answer built around that premise with independent legal judgment about whether the discovery is actually objectionable.
A good lawyer has a different job.
Your lawyer is not there to agree with you. Your lawyer is there to protect your case.
Sometimes that means telling an employee that the employer’s discovery is objectionable and fighting it. Sometimes it means saying the request is invasive, irritating, and perfectly permissible. Good legal advice does not become bad legal advice because the client hates hearing it.
Williams emphasized that he was a “regular, everyday working man” who had spent his career on the road, “not in law school.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the warnings were understandable, noted that he refused the pro se assistance offered to him, and affirmed dismissal with prejudice.
AI can help you justify a position int the way you want without being reliable. A great employment lawyer will tell you whether the law justifies it. Those are not the same thing.
Practical Tip: If AI tells you what you hoped to hear about discovery, a deadline, or a court order, treat that as a reason to ask your attorney—not as permission to act. An experienced employment lawyer should tell you how the law actually applies to your case, including when the answer is one you absolutely do not want to hear.
Best Wrongful Termination Law Firm Blogs on Point:
Frequently Asked Questions About Discovery In Employment Lawsuits
Potentially. Text messages can be discoverable if they fall within the permissible scope of discovery, including relevance and proportionality. A message does not become immune from discovery because it is personal, but your employment lawyer can determine whether a particular request should be answered, narrowed, or challenged.
Can My Employer Get My Social Media During An Employment Discrimination Case?
Potentially. Relevant social-media content may be subject to discovery in an employment discrimination lawsuit, but suing your employer does not automatically give the employer unlimited access to every post, photograph, message, or piece of account information. The particular discovery request still must satisfy the applicable discovery rules.
Should I Delete Text Messages Or Social Media Before Discovery?
No. Deleting potentially relevant texts, social media, emails, or other electronic evidence can create a spoliation problem. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) addresses electronically stored information that should have been preserved for litigation but was lost because reasonable steps were not taken to preserve it, and sanctions may follow. Preserve potentially relevant evidence—even if it is embarrassing or hurts your case—and give it to your employment lawyer to determine what must be produced and how to address it.
How Should I Answer Written Discovery In A Wrongful Termination Case?
Give your employment attorney all potentially responsive information and documents—including facts or evidence you think hurt your case. Do not decide for yourself what to omit because it seems irrelevant, embarrassing, or damaging. Your attorney needs the complete picture to determine what must be disclosed, what can properly be objected to, and how to finalize accurate discovery responses. Your job is to give your lawyer the facts. Your lawyer’s job is to determine how the law requires those facts to be answered.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employee rights and workplace discrimination blog provides general information about employment law, employment discrimination, discovery, Title VII, wrongful termination, and employees who believe they were wrongfully fired. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as advice about any specific employee, employer, lawsuit, discovery request, or workplace dispute. Employment law rights and discovery obligations depend on the particular facts, applicable law, and court rules. Consult a qualified employment lawyer or attorney for advice about your specific situation. No result, recovery, settlement, or outcome is promised or guaranteed, and past results do not guarantee future results. Reading this blog or contacting Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm does not create an attorney-client relationship unless one is expressly established. This blog is a legal advertisement.