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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT