Savignac v. Day

• Decision Date: 20 February 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 19-2443 (RDM)
• Citation: 586 F.Supp.3d 16
• Parties: Mark C. SAVIGNAC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JONES DAY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

586 F.Supp.3d 16

Mark C. SAVIGNAC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JONES DAY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-2443 (RDM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed February 20, 2022

586 F.Supp.3d 17

Mark C. Savignac, Urbana, IL, Pro Se.

Julia Sheketoff, Urbana, IL, Pro Se.

MaryEllen Powers, Christopher DiPompeo, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Anderson T. Bailey, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Terri L. Chase, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Miami, FL, Traci L. Lovitt, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Defendants Jones Day, Stephen J. Brogan, Beth Heifetz.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge

Since discovery began in this case in May 2021, the parties’ exchange of information has been heavily contested, necessitating the Court's intervention on no fewer than seven separate occasions. See Min. Entry (June 4, 2021); Min. Entry (July 20, 2021); Min. Entry (July 29, 2021); Min. Entry (Sept. 9, 2021); Min. Entry (Sept. 29, 2021); Min. Entry (Jan. 31, 2021). In the latest round of discovery disputes, Plaintiffs and Defendants have each filed motions to compel in which they seek to challenge various privilege assertions by their opponents. See Dkt. 85; Dkt. 91. The Court held a hearing on the disputes on January 31, 2022, at which it resolved most of the issues raised by the parties’ motions and referred part of Plaintiffs’ motion to a magistrate judge for ex parte, in camera review of certain documents on Defendants’ privilege log. Min. Entry (Jan. 31, 2022); see Min. Order (Feb. 1, 2022).

One issue that remains involves Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 1, which requests information relating to an email that Savignac sent to Jones Day on January 16, 2019. That email takes issue with Jones Day's rejection of Savignac's request for the same period of parental leave offered to female lawyers at the firm. Copying Sheketoff, Savignac wrote: "We have closely reviewed the case law, including the two cases you rely on. We have also discussed the matter with other competent attorneys. Your cases do not support Jones Day's discriminatory policy, which is illegal under Title VII and D.C. law." Dkt. 84-2 at 14. Interrogatory No. 1, in turn, asks

586 F.Supp.3d 18

Plaintiffs to "[i]dentify each [p]erson whom you conferred or consulted with regarding Jones Day's parental and/or disability polices at any time prior to the January [e]mail, including without limitation those individuals referenced in the January [e]mail as ‘other competent attorneys.’ " Dkt. 91-5 at 3. In response to the interrogatory, Plaintiffs identified several current and former Jones Day attorneys with whom they had discussed Jones Day's policies. Id. at 3–4. They declined, however, to disclose "the identities of the persons with whom they consulted in anticipation of this litigation (including the ‘other competent attorneys’ and any other lawyers and law firms)," on the theory that the names are "protected from discovery by the work-product doctrine" and, in any event, are "irrelevant." Id. at 3. Defendants now ask the Court to compel a response. Dkt. 91 at 14.

At the outset, Plaintiffs acknowledge—as they must—that "Jones Day ‘is free to ask for names of persons with knowledge of the facts.’ " Dkt. 100 at 18 (quoting United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co. , 270 F. Supp. 3d 220, 225 (D.D.C. 2017) ). But the identification of individuals whom Plaintiffs interviewed in preparation for litigation is a different matter, Plaintiffs maintain, because "[s]uch information would reveal ‘how [Plaintiffs] choose to prepare their case, the efforts they undertake, and the people they interview—all information that falls within the scope of the work-product doctrine.’ " Id. (quoting All Assets Held , 270 F. Supp. 3d at 225 ). Plaintiffs also insist that the names of the individuals whom they consulted are irrelevant. Id. at 19. These individuals do not have any "discoverable information," Plaintiff claim, because their "sole connection to this case is that they were ‘consulted ... regarding Jones Day's parental and/or...