Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Stella Thomas sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in employment-discrimination litigation. In her amended complaint, she alleged that she was paid less than male employees for the same work in violation of the Equal Pay Act. She also alleged that Wells Fargo retaliated against her by withholding a bonus paid to similarly situated white colleagues with the same job responsibilities. Thomas represented herself in the motion proceedings.

The motion concerned Request for Production No. 11, which sought documents showing pay schedules and bonus opportunities for Credit Analysts. Wells Fargo initially objected that the request was vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the case, but agreed to produce documents reflecting Thomas’s compensation and bonus opportunities for the Credit Analyst position. Thomas later sought pay and bonus information for 11 people whom she identified as Small Business Administration Credit Analysts, including people who held Underwriter titles. Wells Fargo provided compensation information for five people who had served as Credit Analyst Is during the relevant period and stated that Credit Analyst Is were not eligible for bonuses.

Parties’ Positions

Thomas argued that Credit Analyst I and Underwriter I positions involved substantially similar responsibilities and that some employees received bonuses because they were given different titles. She sought additional compensation information and also served interrogatories concerning the review, pay, promotion, and hiring of several individuals. Wells Fargo argued that the additional information was not responsive to a timely discovery request, was not relevant or proportional, and was sought through interrogatories served too late under the operative scheduling order.

Wells Fargo submitted a declaration from Matt Abens, a Hub Lending Manager in its Small Business Administration group. Abens stated that Credit Analyst I, Underwriter I, and Underwriter II were separate roles with different job descriptions, duties, and experience requirements. He stated that Credit Analyst Is were compensated at the lowest level and were not bonus eligible, while Underwriters were eligible for bonuses. He also stated that some people moved from Credit Analyst I to Underwriter I after at least 14 months and that others had been hired directly as Underwriters.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court stated that it could deny the motion because Thomas’s July 16, 2021 interrogatories were untimely under the Third Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order. That order required fact discovery to be completed by August 9, 2021. The court concluded that the interrogatories did not give Wells Fargo adequate time to respond by the deadline and that Thomas had not shown the required diligence or good cause to modify the scheduling order.

The court also addressed the substance of the discovery dispute. Under the federal discovery rules, information must be relevant to a claim or defense, nonprivileged, and proportional to the needs of the case. The court found that Wells Fargo had provided relevant and proportional compensation information for the five people who held the same Credit Analyst I position as Thomas. It further found that Thomas had not shown that the Credit Analyst I and Underwriter positions were substantially the same, while Abens’s declaration showed that the positions had distinct duties and were separate roles.

Judge Tony N. Leung therefore ordered that Thomas’s Motion to Compel was DENIED. The order stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect and warned that violations of the order or earlier orders could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions.