Firefighters' Institute for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Citation | 220 F.3d 898 |
| Docket Number | INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT,99-4245,INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS,No. 99-3676,99-3676 |
| Parties | (8th Cir. 2000) FIREFIGHTERS' INSTITUTE FOR RACIAL EQUALITY, BY AND THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN; ROBERT ANDERSON; CHARLES BATES; DONALD CHAMBERS; MICHAEL COLEMAN; ERIC DRIVER; KENNETH GREEN; LEROY HARRIS; LONNIE R. HUGHES; STANLEY JOHNSON; JOSEPH JONES; JOHN LESTER; RONALD LOGAN; JAMES MORGAN; MICHAEL PICKETT; ZEFPRO REDDING; GARY RUFFIN; LAWRENCE SAYLES; ADDINGTON STEWART; NATHANIAL SUTHERLAND; LLOYD TATE; GILBERT VAUGHN; DERRICK WEBSTER; DAVID WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ST. LOUIS FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 73; EDWIN F. LIBBY, JR.; DENNIS JENKERSON; JAY JENNINGS; WILLIAM SCHURWAN; DWIGHT C. CROSS; MARK BRADSHAW; LAWRENCE REINECKE; ROBERT MILANI; LAWRENCE AUER; STEVEN NEINHAUS; LEO KUCHNER; LARRY DONOVAN; GRANT A. BERGER; SCOTT SPEIGEL; WILLIAM O. HILL; BRUCE E. WILLIAMS; MARK R. DUFFY; THEODORE RICHARDSON,/APPELLEES, GERALD JR. JORDEN,/APPELLEE. FIREFIGHTERS' INSTITUTE FOR RACIAL EQUALITY, BY AND THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN; ROBERT ANDERSON; CHARLES BATES; DONALD CHAMBERS; MICHAEL COLEMAN; ERIC DRIVER; KENNETH GREEN; LEROY HARRIS; LONNIE R. HUGHES; STANLEY JOHNSON; JOSEPH JONES; JOHN LESTER; RONALD LOGAN; JAMES MORGAN; MICHAEL PICKETT; ZEFPRO REDDING; GARY RUFFIN; LAWRENCE SAYLES; ADDINGTON STEWART; NATHANIAL SUTHERLAND; LLOYD TATE; GILBERT VAUGHN; DERRICK WEBSTER; DAVID WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ST. LOUIS FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 73; EDWIN F. LIBBY, JR.; DENNIS JENKERSON; JAY JENNINGS; WILLIAM SCHURWAN; DWIGHT C. CROSS; MARK BRADSHAW; LAWRENCE REINECKE; ROBERT MILANI; LAWRENCE AUER; STEVEN NEINHAUS; LEO KUCHNER; LARRY DONOVAN; GRANT A. BERGER; SCOTT SPEIGEL; WILLIAM O. HILL; BRUCE E. WILLIAMS; MARK R. DUFFY; THEODORE RICHARDSON,/APPELLEES. Submitted: |
| Decision Date | 14 June 2000 |
Page 898
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
Page 899
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
73; EDWIN F. LIBBY, JR.; DENNIS JENKERSON; JAY JENNINGS; WILLIAM SCHURWAN; DWIGHT C. CROSS; MARK BRADSHAW; LAWRENCE REINECKE; ROBERT MILANI; LAWRENCE AUER; STEVEN NEINHAUS; LEO KUCHNER; LARRY DONOVAN; GRANT A. BERGER; SCOTT SPEIGEL; WILLIAM O. HILL; BRUCE E. WILLIAMS; MARK R. DUFFY; THEODORE RICHARDSON, INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.
Filed: August 11, 2000
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Page 900
Page 901
Before Wollman, Chief Judge, Beam, Circuit Judge, and Panner,1 District Judge.
Beam, Circuit Judge.
Firefighters' Institute for Racial Equality 2 and twenty-two individual plaintiffs (collectively FIRE) brought suit against the City of St. Louis (the City) and the St. Louis Firefighters Association Local 73 (Local 73) 3 for violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1988, and 2000e-2 (Title VII), and
Page 902
the Missouri Human Rights Act. The district court 4 granted summary judgment to the City and Local 73. FIRE appeals and we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Barrett & Associates (Barrett), at the City's behest, developed, administered, and scored a promotional exam for the rank of battalion fire chief, and provided a ranking of candidates based on the results of the exam. The four-part exam tested job knowledge and supervisory/managerial skills, had a fire scene simulation and an oral briefing exercise. In 1997, seventy-eight fire captains took the exam, of whom fifty-three were Caucasian and twenty-five were African-American. Twelve captains were placed on the eligibility list, of whom ten were Caucasian and two were African-American. FIRE brought suit, asserting that the disparate impact the test had on the African-American candidates--with 18.8% of the Caucasian candidates being eligible for promotion versus only 8% of the African-American candidates--violates Title VII, sections 1981 and 1988, and the Missouri Human Rights Act.
Over the course of discovery in this case, the district court granted a motion to strike FIRE's expert witness, quashed subpoenas to two non-party witnesses, and refused to compel the testimony of two non-party witnesses and the production of the personnel files of the battalion chiefs promoted from the 1997 exam. After discovery closed, the City and Local 73 moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted the motion, and also awarded costs to both the City and Local 73.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Discovery
Our review of a trial court's discovery decisions is very narrow. See Derby v. Godfather's Pizza, Inc., 45 F.3d 1212, 1215 (8th Cir. 1995). "Reversal is inappropriate absent a 'gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness in the trial of the case.'" McGowan v. General Dynamics Corp., 794 F.2d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1986) (quoting Voegeli v. Lewis, 568 F.2d 89, 96 (8th Cir. 1977)).
1. Motion to Strike FIRE's Expert
FIRE contends the district court erred when it granted a motion to strike FIRE's expert for failing to meet the deadline for filing expert reports. There is no question, however, that the expert's report was untimely. The district court set a deadline of December 28, 1998, for disclosure of FIRE's expert and the expert report. FIRE named an expert on that date, but did not provide a report. FIRE assured the court that the report would be completed the first week of January, but failed to fulfill that promise as well. When the district court held a hearing on the motion to strike on February 19, 1999, the report still had not been filed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 permits the district court to set deadlines for the disclosure of evidence and to impose sanctions on a party for failing to meet a deadline. See Trost v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 162 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 1998). Unless the failure to meet a deadline was either harmless or substantially justified, the court may sanction a party by excluding its evidence. See id. at 1008-09.
FIRE asserts it was substantially justified in not filing the report because the City's initial disclosures were insufficient. However, FIRE did not raise this issue until four months after the disclosures were due and two months after the expert report deadline. Additionally, FIRE provided no explanation for its delay in raising this issue. Thus, even if we accepted this after-the-fact justification, it came far too
Page 903
late for us to say the district court abused its discretion by striking FIRE's expert.
2. Quashing the Subpoenas Duces Tecum
FIRE next asserts the district court erred in quashing subpoenas to two non-parties. On April 19, 1999, the last day of discovery, FIRE served a subpoena duces tecum upon Burroughs and Rockhill 5 for its entire file on the St. Louis battalion chiefs exam. The district court quashed the subpoena because it found the method of service did not comport with Rule 45(b)(1). We agree. Rule 45(b)(1) requires FIRE to serve the City with prior notice of commanded production of documents. It failed to serve the City with such notice. Therefore, we find the district court's decision to quash the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Preleski, SC 20104
...N.Y.S.2d 553 (1980) ("[p]ersonal delivery means ‘in-hand delivery’ "); see also Firefighter's Institute for Racial Equality v. St. Louis , 220 F.3d 898, 903 (8th Cir. 2000) (transmitting subpoena by fax is insufficient to satisfy rule 45 (b) (1) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which re......
-
Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., C 98-2106 MWB.
...court abused its discretion by striking FIRE's expert. Firefighter's Inst. for Racial Equality ex. rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 902-03 (8th Cir.2000) (FIRE), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 921, 121 S.Ct. 1359, 149 L.Ed.2d 288 (2001). Similarly, in Jochims v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd.,......
-
Lisdahl v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. And Research, Civ. No. 07-3708 (RLE).
...Bicycle Corp., 162 F.3d 1004, 1008-09 (8th Cir.1998); Firefighter's Institute for Racial Equality ex rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 902 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 921 [121 S.Ct. 1359, 149 L.Ed.2d 288] (2001). Although [Lisdahl] failed to make any showing that ......
-
Stanley v. Cottrell, Inc., 14–1635.
...of witness fees related to the deposition of Dr. Micklow. Firefighters' Inst. for Racial Equality ex rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 905 (8th Cir.2000).To the extent Stanley argues that the amount of the fee exceeds the limits established by Title 28 U.S.C. § 1821, the fle......
-
Nonparty discovery
...to service of subpoena on nonparty, not prior to production of documents); Firefighters’ Inst. for Racial Equal. v. City of St. Louis, 220 F. 3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000) (subpoena quashed for failure to give prior notice to other parties); Automotive Inspection Services, Inc. v. Flint Auto Aucti......
-
Subpoena power
...mail does not satisfy the delivery requirement. Firefighters’ Institute for Racial Equality ex rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis , 220 F.3d 898 (8th Cir., Mo., 2000). But service may be effected by certified mail. Doe v. Hersemann , 155 F.R.D. 630 (N.D.Ind., 1994). 36 For a situation invol......
-
Deposition Arrangements
...at * 3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2001) (service by mail upheld); Firefighters. Inst. for Racial Equality ex rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 903 (8th Cir. 2000) (service by fax and mail held invalid because court was not assured that delivery occurred; but court indicated that subs......
-
Damned If You Do and Damned If You Don’t: Title VII and Public Employee Promotion Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Litigation
...Inst, for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 616 F.2d 350 (CA 8 1980).Firefi ghters’ Inst. for Racial Equality. v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898 (CA 8 2000).Guardians Association of the New York City Police Department, Inc. v. Civil Service Commission of the City of New York (630 F.2d......