Kennicott v. Sandia Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 17-0188 JB\GJF,CIV 17-0188 JB\GJF |
| Parties | LISA A. KENNICOTT, LISA A. GARCIA, SUE C. PHELPS, and JUDI DOOLITTLE, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDIA CORPORATION d/b/a SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Letter from Anne B. Shaver, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, to the Court (dated December 6, 2018), filed December 6, 2018 (Doc. 194)("Letter"). The Court held a hearing on December 11, 2018. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed December 11, 2018 (Doc. 198). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should order Defendant Sandia Corporation d/b/a Sandia National Laboratories ("Sandia Labs") to produce discovery on its current -- post-April, 2017 -- employment policies and practices; and (ii) whether the Court should order Sandia Labs to produce data on its employees' prior pay. In the Letter from Krissy A. Katzenstein, Morgan Lewis, to the Court (dated December 10, 2018), filed December 10, 2018 (Doc. 196)("Letter Response"), Sandia Labs concedes that it will produce discovery on the prior pay data. See Letter Response at 4. Accordingly, the Court need not order Sandia Labs to produce such information. Because discovery postdating April, 2017, is relevant to the Plaintiffs'1 claims and because the Court can order Sandia Labs to produce discovery that is proportional to the Plaintiffs' needs, the Court will order Sandia Labs to produce its 2018, policy documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") related to the "vice president of human resources post-transition" -- now "associate laboratory director of human resources" (hereinafter, "vice president" or "vice president of human resources"). Draft Transcript of Hearing at 20:11-13(taken December 11, 2018)(Levin-Gesundheit)("Tr."); id. at 22:8 (Levin-Gesundheit).2 The Court, therefore, grants the Plaintiffs' requests in part and denies them in part.
The Court recited this case's facts and early procedural history in its Memorandum Opinion and Order at 2-3, 2018 WL 6069635, at *1, filed November 20, 2018 (Doc. 190)("MOO"). The Court incorporates that recitation here.
Plaintiffs Lisa A. Kennicott, Lisa A. Garcia, Sue C. Phelps, and Judi Doolittle allege that Sandia Labs, "a federally-funded research and development contractor operating under contract for the Department of Energy and managed by Sandia Corporation," First Amended Class Action Complaint ¶ 1, at 1, filed July 5, 2018 (Doc. 146)("First Amended Complaint"), has "policies, patterns, and practices," which result in female employees earning lower compensation and fewer promotions than "their male counterparts," First Amended Complaint ¶ 3, at 2. According to the Plaintiffs, Sandia Labs applies uniform policies in its offices throughout the United States of America. See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 22-23, at 5-6. The Plaintiffs allege that Sandia Labs' employee performance evaluation process, see First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 26-30, at 6-7, initial salary calculations, see First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 31-35, at 7-8, and promotion system, see First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 36-40, at 8-9, disadvantage women, see First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 26-40, at 6-9.
MOO at 2, 2018 WL 6069635, at *1.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Kennicott, Garcia, and Phelps sue Sandia Labs on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated. See Class Action Complaint, filed February 7, 2017 (Doc. 1)("Complaint").3 Doolittle joined Kennicott, Garcia, and Phelps as a named plaintiff when the Plaintiffs amended their Complaint. See First Amended Complaint at 1. In the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert: (i) that Sandia Labs engages in intentional discrimination, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-15 ("Title VII"); and (ii) that Sandia Labs engages in disparate impact discrimination in violation of Title VII. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 85-99, at 21-23. Kennicott asserts individual Title VII claims against Sandia Labs for retaliation and constructive discharge. See Amended Complaint ¶¶ 100-08, at 23-24.
MOO at 2, 2018 WL 6069635, at *1. In the MOO, the Court issues an updated case schedule:
Event Original Deadline Stipulated discovery stay ends November 26, 2018
Sandia [Labs] completes production of ESI, including final privilege log January 15, 2019
Pre-class certification discovery deadline March 11, 2019
Plaintiffs submit motion for class certification and expert reports March 25, 2019
Sandia [Labs] submits opposition to class certification and expert reports May 16, 2019
Plaintiffs submit reply motion and expert reports June 18, 2019
Class certification hearing July 1, 2019
MOO at 66, 2018 WL 6069635, at *27. On December 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the letter, requesting the Court's assistance with discovery disputes so that the parties can meet the case deadlines. See Letter at 1.
The Plaintiffs notify the Court of two discovery disputes. See Letter at 1. The Plaintiffs first complain that Sandia Labs refuses to produce discovery on policies and practices that postdate April, 2017. See Letter at 1. The Plaintiffs explain that, on May 1, 2017, "management of Sandia National Laboratories . . . transferred from Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, to National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia ('NTESS'), LLC, a subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc." Letter at 1-2 (citing Corporate Disclosure Statement at 1-2, filed March 17, 2017 (Doc. 16)). According to the Plaintiffs, Sandia Labs has taken the position that its policies and practices postdating the transfer are not relevant. See Letter at 2. The Plaintiffs, however, contend that their Complaint and Amended Compliant allege "ongoing violations of Title VII." Letter at 2 (emphasis in original). The Plaintiffs request that the Court order Sandia Labs to produce the requested discovery for the period from May, 2017, through December, 2018. See Letter at 3.
The Plaintiffs next aver that Sandia Labs has withheld information regarding its employees' prior pay data. See Letter at 3. The Plaintiffs describe that they requested information on employees' "compensation histories" in May, 2017, Letter at 3 (quoting Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request No. 5, at 8, filed March 19, 2018 (Doc. 100-1)), and, according to the Plaintiffs,compensation from prior employers is "an essential component of this information" and relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims. Letter at 3. The Plaintiffs request that the Court order that Sandia Labs produce the requested information within one week so that the Plaintiffs may analyze the information before the deadline for their class certification motion. See Letter at 4.
Sandia Labs responds in a letter dated December 10, 2018. See Letter Response at 1-5. Sandia Labs first contends that it did not refuse to provide prior pay data; rather, according to Sandia Labs, it told the Plaintiffs that they had not requested production of such documents. See Letter Response at 2. Sandia Labs quotes the Plaintiffs' discovery request and emphasizes that the Plaintiffs desired "prior job history within and outside of Sandia." Letter Response at 2 (emphasis in Letter Response)(quoting Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request No. 5, at 8). Sandia Labs explains that, in July, 2018, it provided the Plaintiffs information on its employees' job histories, such as "prior employers, prior employment dates, and positions held," and that the Plaintiffs did not indicate, at that time, any problems with the production. Letter Response at 3. Sandia Labs explains that, in October, 2018, the Plaintiffs requested the prior pay data about which they now complain. See Letter Response at 3. According to Sandia Labs, after it informed the Plaintiffs that they had not previously requested such information, the Plaintiffs served a request for production seeking information on: "compensation in dollar terms, whether in terms of annual salary, hourly wage, bonus compensation AND/OR any other form of compensation, previously received or requested prior to hire AND/OR offer of employment for DEFENDANT's EMPLOYEES AND applicants." Letter Response at 3 (). Sandia Labs concedes that, despite its complaints, it will produce to the Plaintiffs the requested information. See Letter at 4.
Sandia Labs next contends that the Plaintiffs cannot ground their claims on policies and practices that postdate the transition from Sandia Corporation to National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia ("National Technology"). See Letter at 4. Sandia Labs first avers that, because Sandia Labs primarily employed the named Plaintiffs during Sandia Corporation's management, the Plaintiffs cannot base a class claim on later policies and practices. See LetterResponse at 4. Second, Sandia Labs argues that, to the extent that the Plaintiffs base their claims on their starting pay, any policy or practice postdating April, 2017, is irrelevant, because Sandia Labs hired each named Plaintiff at least "thirteen years before the transition date." Letter Response at 4 (emphasis in original). Last, Sandia Labs protests that it has already produced documentation on thousands of Sandia Labs' employees, and so, if the Plaintiffs cannot develop a theory from that discovery, no theory exists. See Letter Response at 4-5.
Also on December 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs replied to the Letter Response. See Letter from Anne B....
To continue reading
Request your trial