ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Pilot program for discovery in employment cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedBarMaley-sigIn the Southern District of Indiana, if you are litigating an adverse-action employment case you might be part of a pilot program that aims to streamline and tailor discovery and scheduling. You will know this upon receipt of an early order in the case indicating that your case is in the pilot program. The nine-page order then sets forth detailed instructions, definitions, instructions and deadlines.

The pilot program is an initiative of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is being utilized in various courts across the country. (The Northern District of Ohio, for instance, is participating.) Highlights of the pilot program order include the following:

First, the order sets forth Initial Discovery Protocols that supersede Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Second, the order sets the relevant time period for discovery as beginning three years before the date of the adverse action unless otherwise specified. Third, the order provides that electronically stored information shall be produced in searchable .pdf format with native format versions of ESI to be preserved for possible production for good cause shown. Fourth, the unintentional production of a privileged or work-product document does not constitute waiver.

Fifth, the order has an expedited schedule, starting with plaintiff providing its initial mandatory discovery production due within 30 days of the answer or responsive motion. Plaintiff must produce a listing of 10 items, ranging from claims, charges and unemployment documents to mitigation-related documents and documents concerning the termination of any subsequent employment. Plaintiffs must also list witnesses, categories of damages and whether any disability benefits have been applied for.

Defendants, meanwhile, must also produce documents and information 30 days after the answer or motion to dismiss. Required information is set forth in a 14-point list and includes the plaintiff’s personnel file, policies in effect relevant to the adverse action, relevant job descriptions, compensation and benefit documents, non-privileged investigative documents, and a listing of plaintiff’s supervisors and managers, and decision-makers.

Next, the order has a self-contained “Interim Protective Order” that provides for confidentiality designations and protections and fairly standard procedures. It does not address attorney’s-eyes-only requests and designations, but does state that parties may apply for any further protective order or modification.

Supreme Court decision on class actions

In Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, the Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that class-action plaintiffs cannot evade removal to federal court by stipulating, pre-certification, that they seek damages less than the jurisdictional threshold required for removal. Knowles stipulated in his complaint that “Plaintiff and the Class . . . will seek to recover total aggregate damages of less than five million dollars.” By so stipulating, Knowles sought to evade the jurisdictional minimum of $5 million set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

He was initially successful, as after removal the court remanded the case because of the stipulation and in spite of its finding that the amount in controversy would have exceeded the jurisdictional minimum otherwise. In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that Knowles’ stipulation was not binding on the class he purported to represent, as he could not legally bind members of a proposed class prior to that class being certified. Although the court agreed that an individual could limit the amount in controversy as to himself, that plaintiff could not “resolve the amount-in controversy question [by stipulation] in light of his inability to bind the rest of the class.”

7th Circuit Conference

The 7th Circuit Conference is in Indianapolis this year, from May 5-7. Excellent CLE programs and dinner programs are featured. Register online at 7thcircuitbar.org.•

__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT