Kennicott v. Sandia Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 17-0188 JB\GJF,CIV 17-0188 JB\GJF |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
| 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. |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiffs' Letter from Anne B. Shaver, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, to the Court (dated November 12, 2018), filed November 12, 2018 (Doc. 187)("Letter"); and (ii) the Letter from Krissy A. Katzenstein, Morgan Lewis, to the Court (dated November 15, 2018), filed November 15, 2018 (Doc. 188)("Letter Response"). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should, at this time, decide Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Claims, filed August 9, 2018 (Doc. 155)("MTD"); (ii) whether the Court should grant the proposed case schedule in the Plaintiffs' Letter, which modifies pretrial deadlines to which the parties stipulated in the Joint Proposed Case Schedule at 4, filed October 11, 2018 (Doc. 183), by requiring Defendant Sandia Corporation ("Sandia Labs") to complete electronically stored information ("ESI") production by January 4, 2019, and the Plaintiffs to submit their motion for class certification and expert reports by April 5, 2019, to accommodate a July 1, 2019, class certification hearing deadline; and (iii) whether the Court should grant the proposed case schedule in Sandia Labs' Letter Response, which modifies pretrial deadlines for the same reason and requires Sandia Labs to complete ESI production by February 1, 2019, and the Plaintiffs to submit their motion for class certification and expert reports by March 25, 2019. The Court will not, at this time, decide the MTD, because the Court will address the MTD after the class certification hearing. The Court will amend the Joint Proposed Case Schedule as described below and require Sandia Labs to complete ESI production on January 15, 2019, and the Plaintiffs to submit their motion for class certification and expert reports by March 25, 2019.
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.
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").1 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. Sandia Labs filed its MTD on August 9, 2018, arguing that the Plaintiffs are on a fishing expedition, because the First Amended Complaint is inconsistent with the Complaint; that the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's commonality requirement, or rule 23(b)(2)'s or (b)(3)'s requirements for class action certification; and that the Plaintiffs have not identified specific actions resulting in a disparate impact. See MTD at 1-3. Simultaneously, Sandia Labs requests that, to conserve resources, the Court stay discovery until the Court decides the MTD. See Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Defendant's MTD Class Claims at 4, filed August 9, 2018 (Doc. 156). The Plaintiffs respond, averring that the First Amended Complaint satisfies the pleading requirements and that Sandia Labs' MTD mainly addresses class certification, which the parties will address when the Plaintiffs move to certify a class. See Plaintiffs' Response inOpposition to Defendant's MTD Plaintiffs' Class Claims at 1, filed August 23, 2018 (Doc. 157). In response to Sandia Labs' request to stay discovery, the Plaintiffs accuse Sandia Labs of attempting to delay discovery and argue that, because Sandia Labs will lose the MTD, discovery will continue regardless the MTD. See Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery at 1, filed August 23, 2018 (Doc. 158).
On October 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Joint Proposed Case Schedule. See Joint Proposed Case Schedule at 4. As part of the Joint Proposed Case Schedule, the parties stipulated to a discovery stay to end on December 14, 2018. See Joint Proposed Case Schedule at 2. The Joint Proposed Case Schedule provides for the following deadlines:
Event Proposed Deadline Stipulated discovery stay ends December 14, 2018
Sandia completes production of ESI, including final privilege log March 1, 2019
Pre-class certification discovery deadline April 12, 2019
Plaintiffs submit motion for class certification and expert reports May 9, 2019
Sandia submits opposition to class certification and expert reports July 25, 2019
Plaintiffs submit reply motion and expert reports September 13, 2019
Joint Proposed Case Schedule at 2.
The Court held a hearing on the MTD on October 17, 2018. See Draft Transcript of Hearing at 1 (taken October 17, 2018)("Tr.").2 At the hearing, the Court said it thought the MTD was an attempt to preempt and shortcut the Plaintiffs' upcoming motion for class certification without allowing the Plaintiffs to conduct discovery, and the Court said it would "sit" on the MTDfor a while, planning to decide the MTD at or after the class certification hearing.3 Tr. at 4:5-4:12 (Court). Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1234 (11th Cir. 2000)("Going beyond the pleadings is necessary, as a court must understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination of the certification issues."). "In determining the propriety of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met." Anderson v. City of Albuquerque, 690 F.2d 796, 799 (10th Cir. 1982)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350-52 (2011)("Wal-Mart"); Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259, 1267 (10th Cir. 2009). In response to the Court's declination to decide the MTD immediately or promptly, the Court and the parties agreed that the parties and the Court would schedule a class certification hearing for July 1, 2019, and that the parties would modify the Joint Proposed Case Schedule to account for the July 1, 2019, class certification hearing. See Tr. at 37:25-38:12 (Court, Shaver, Katzenstein).
The Plaintiffs filed the Letter to notify the Court that the parties could not agree to a modified case schedule. See Letter at 1. The Plaintiffs state that they will struggle to meet theJuly 1, 2019, class certification hearing deadline and explain that Sandia Labs has refused to withdraw its MTD or speed its ESI production to allow the Plaintiffs to meet the July 1, 2019, class certification hearing deadline. See Letter at 2. According to the Plaintiffs, the parties each proposed a modified case schedule, and the Plaintiffs summarize the proposed schedules:
Event Sandia's Proposed Deadline
Plaintiffs' Proposed Deadline Stipulated discovery stay ends November 30, 2018
November 26, 2018
Sandia completes production of ESI, including final privilege log February 1, 2019
January 4, 2019
Pre-class certification discovery deadline March 24, 2019
April 4, 2019
Plaintiffs submit motion for class certification and expert reports March 25, 2019
April 5, 2019
Sandia submits opposition to class certification and expert reports May 16, 2019
May 16, 2019
Plaintiffs submit reply motion and expert reports June 18, 2019
June 18, 2019
Class certification hearing July 1, 2019
July 1, 2019
The Plaintiffs ask for "a minimum of three months after ESI is produced" to file the class certification motion and expert reports, but, according to the Plaintiffs, Sandia Labs wants to limit the Plaintiffs to seven weeks for the task. See Letter at 3. The Plaintiffs justify their request, explaining that Sandia Labs has refused to provide relevant compensation documents, promotion policy documents, and email information; that the Plaintiffs intend to compel Sandia Labs to produce these documents; and that the Plaintiffs anticipate needing to compel additional information, because Sandia Labs has been slow to provide discovery documents. See Letter at 3. The Plaintiffs also expect that the parties will "need to litigate a number of privilege-relateddisputes," because Sandia Labs produced an incomplete privilege log and has...
To continue reading
Request your trial