O'Rear v. Diaz

Background

The plaintiff, S. O’Rear, Armando Diaz, and corporate defendants Merkley + Partners Inc. and Omnicom Group Inc. raised several discovery disputes. The parties also jointly requested an extension of the fact-discovery deadline.

Rulings on the Parties’ Requests

The court granted the joint request to extend fact discovery to December 4, 2024. It rejected the parties’ proposed December 12, 2024 case-management conference date and scheduled the next conference for January 8, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. The court stated that the conference was intended to address possible summary-judgment motions after the parties had submitted the required pre-motion materials.

O’Rear asked the court to expedite her motion to disqualify the corporate defendants’ counsel. The court stated that it was prioritizing that motion but did not otherwise rule on it in this order.

O’Rear also requested an unredacted version of Omnicom’s employment-practices liability insurance policy. The court denied that request without prejudice because O’Rear had not first met and conferred with opposing counsel as required by the court’s individual rules. This means the request could be raised again after that conference.

O’Rear sought to stay, or delay, the corporate defendants’ partial motion to dismiss until discovery ended. The court denied that request, explaining that her arguments concerned the merits of the motion to dismiss and could be made in her opposition to that motion. The court granted O’Rear’s alternative request to extend her deadline to respond to September 30, 2024.

O’Rear asked the corporate defendants to file an answer to sexual-harassment claims that were not addressed by their partial motion to dismiss. The court denied that request. It held that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4), filing a motion under Rule 12 generally suspends the deadline to answer until 14 days after the court decides the motion, including when the motion is only partial.

Finally, O’Rear argued that Diaz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was procedurally improper because the pleadings were not yet closed. The court agreed with Diaz that the premature motion should be treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), because the standards are similar. The court also agreed that O’Rear should have another opportunity to amend her complaint as a matter of course in response to the motion. It therefore gave her until September 6, 2024, to file a Second Amended Complaint solely for that purpose. The court stated that the existing briefing schedule for the corporate defendants’ motion to dismiss would remain unchanged.

Disposition

The court granted the joint request to extend fact discovery, denied O’Rear’s insurance-policy request without prejudice, denied her request to stay the partial motion to dismiss, granted her alternative request for more time to respond, denied her request for an answer from the corporate defendants, and construed Diaz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion to dismiss. It also gave O’Rear an additional opportunity to amend. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at Dockets 57, 61, and 64.