Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-01534
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Judge Thorson granted in part and denied in part Deering’s document-production motion.
Daniel’la Deering and defendants Lockheed Martin Corporation, Maryanne Lavan, and Kenneth Bastian, particularly their obligations to produce documents and address privilege and electronic-discovery procedures.
What happened
In Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Daniel’la Deering asked the court to require Lockheed Martin Corporation, Maryanne Lavan, and Kenneth Bastian to produce documents in this employment discrimination case.
The court granted the request in part and denied it in part. It ordered production of some requested documents, limited other requests by subject or date, and denied several requests as overly broad, vague, irrelevant, or disproportionate. It also denied Deering’s request for expenses and attorney’s fees.
Judge Becky R. Thorson required the parties to address electronic-discovery procedures and set deadlines for document production and privilege logs. The court did not decide privilege or work-product objections; any motion seeking such a ruling was denied without prejudice as premature.
The detailed version
- Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · No. 0:20-cv-01534
- David Doty
- Apr. 16, 2021
Background
Daniel’la Deering moved to compel production of documents from Lockheed Martin Corporation, Maryanne Lavan, and Kenneth Bastian. The court addressed only the discovery requests that Deering’s counsel identified as still in dispute at the April 12, 2021, hearing. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. It also considered the requirement that document requests describe the requested documents with reasonable particularity and the limits on discovery about other employees in employment discrimination cases.
Rulings on the motion
The court granted in part and denied in part Deering’s motion to compel as follows:
- RFP No. 2: The motion was granted. - RFP No. 3: The motion was denied as moot because the defendants agreed to produce nonprivileged documents relating to Deering’s claims. - RFP No. 4: The defendants had produced or agreed to produce certain nonprivileged policies and documents. They were required to produce the agreed-upon policies dating back to January 1,
- Deering’s request for policies dating back to January 1, 2012, was denied as overly broad and not proportional. - RFP No. 6: The motion was denied because the request was overly broad and not proportional. The court noted that an interrogatory might be a better way to seek information identifying certain cases litigated through trial since
- - RFP No. 8: The motion was granted in part. The list of matters involving alleged misuse of privileged, confidential, or proprietary Lockheed Martin information had to include a summary of the allegations and each matter’s outcome, including whether disciplinary action was taken. The remainder of the request was denied as overly broad and not proportional. - RFP No. 9: The motion was denied because the request, both as drafted and as modified, was overly broad and not proportional. - RFP No. 10: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants had to produce documents sufficient to show the names, race, job level, ratings history, and promotion dates of attorneys in the Lockheed Martin RMS Division legal department since January 1,
- The remainder was denied as overly broad and not proportional. - RFP No. 11: The motion was granted in part, limited to documents concerning appeals of Heritage RMS Division performance reviews for RMS Division lawyers initiated from January 1, 2014, through the date the document requests were served. The remainder was denied as overly broad and not proportional. - RFP No. 14: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants had to supplement their list of cases to include cases that went to trial from January 1, 2014, forward and produce any related summaries or reports. The remainder was denied as overly broad and not proportional. - RFP No. 15: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants had to produce documents in their possession, custody, or control identifying or reflecting Deering’s internal communications about the status and management of the cases named Balderrama v. Lockheed Martin Corporation and Braden v. Lockheed Martin during the pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages. The remainder was denied as vague, overly broad, and not proportional. - RFP No. 16: The motion was granted. - RFP No. 17: The motion was denied because the request was vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not proportional. - RFP No. 18: The motion was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants had to produce documents sufficient to identify discrimination complaints or charges by Lockheed Martin in-house attorneys based on race or color, and/or retaliation, from January 1, 2014, through the date the requests were served, along with documents reflecting the outcomes. The remainder was denied as overly broad and not proportional. - RFP No. 19: The motion was denied because the request was vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and not proportional. - RFP No. 20: The motion was granted. - RFP No. 21: The motion was denied for lack of a showing of relevance and because it was overly broad and not proportional.
The court denied Deering’s request that the defendants pay reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees for bringing the motion.
Electronic discovery, privilege, and deadlines
If the parties needed to confirm an electronic-discovery protocol, they had to complete their discussion within 14 days after the order and jointly file a stipulation within that same period. Documents ordered by the court had to be produced within 28 days after the order. The order did not decide whether particular documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. To the extent Deering sought a ruling on those objections, the motion was denied without prejudice as premature. Protected documents had to be identified on a privilege log served within 35 days, and disputes about privilege or work-product protection had to be brought to the court, after the required discussion between the parties, within 21 days after service of the log.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.