William v. Morrison & Foerster LLP

Background

The plaintiffs sued Morrison & Foerster LLP for pregnancy and gender employment discrimination, among other claims. The court considered a joint discovery-dispute letter concerning Morrison & Foerster’s subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 to Freshfields, William’s former employer, and Linklaters, Klayman’s current employer.

The plaintiffs argued that the subpoenas sought private information and that their privacy interests outweighed the need for the discovery. Under Rule 45, a court must quash a subpoena requiring disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected information when no exception or waiver applies. The court explained that employment and personnel records implicate privacy interests but may be disclosed when the requesting party makes a specific showing of relevance. The plaintiffs bore the burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted.

Freshfields subpoena

Morrison & Foerster sought William’s personnel file and communications about her job performance, as well as documents and communications concerning Freshfields’ decision to classify her as a 2011 instead of a 2010. The court found that communications about William’s performance and Freshfields’ classification decision were relevant because her performance and demonstrated skills were central to the lawsuit. The court also rejected the argument that Morrison & Foerster had to accept William’s testimony instead of obtaining discovery from Freshfields. It explained that relevant material may be discoverable even if it ultimately is not admissible as evidence.

The court nevertheless found that Morrison & Foerster had not explained why information in William’s personnel file unrelated to her job performance was relevant. It therefore quashed the Freshfields subpoena to the extent it sought William’s entire personnel file and limited the subpoena to documents and communications about her job performance and the classification decision. The documents were to be produced subject to the protective order.

Linklaters subpoena

Morrison & Foerster sought from Linklaters: (1) communications Klayman had with Linklaters about her claims against Morrison & Foerster; (2) performance evaluations and disciplinary records from approximately one year; and (3) documents concerning Klayman’s current compensation and benefits, including representations she made to Linklaters during negotiations.

The court found that Klayman’s communications with Linklaters about her claims and her compensation and benefits were relevant. It also found that her performance evaluations and disciplinary records for a one-year period were relevant: exemplary performance could support her claim, while problems noted near the time of her employment with Morrison & Foerster might support the defense. The court again rejected the argument that Morrison & Foerster had to rely only on documents Klayman produced or that possible inadmissibility barred discovery.

As with the Freshfields subpoena, however, Morrison & Foerster had not explained why it should receive Klayman’s entire personnel file, including unrelated documents. The court therefore quashed the Linklaters subpoena to the extent it sought the entire personnel file. Produced documents were subject to the protective order.

Ruling

Judge Corley denied in part and granted in part the plaintiffs’ request to quash the subpoenas. The order disposed of the discovery-dispute filing identified as Docket No. 131.