Krapf v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Background

Lisa Krapf alleged that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation subjected her to sex discrimination, reprisal, whistleblower retaliation, and a hostile work environment while she worked as an Area Business Leader and manager of the Cardiovascular Sales Team. She identified supervisors Conrad McCrary and Matthew Zeller as alleged wrongdoers.

Krapf sought discovery about other employees supervised by McCrary or Zeller, including employees who had complained of discrimination, filed lawsuits, or filed administrative charges. She also sought personnel-file information. Novartis sought communications between Krapf and current or former Novartis employees, social-media data, additional time to complete her deposition, and sanctions.

Krapf’s Motion to Compel

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.

The court determined that discovery could include the 11 area business leaders who held the same type of position as Krapf and reported to McCrary. It excluded 68 female sales representatives because they held different positions and did not report directly to McCrary. The court found that Krapf had not shown that those sales representatives were similarly situated in all relevant respects.

The court limited the information to be produced to Business Practices Office reports, NBPO reports, inquiries, lawsuits, or administrative charges against McCrary or Zeller alleging discrimination, reprisal, retaliation, or a hostile work environment. The relevant period was January 1, 2015, through August 9, 2020.

The court denied Krapf’s request for reports listed in an exhibit concerning McCrary and Sandy Avery when those reports involved inappropriate behavior, predated Krapf’s employment, or were not shown to be relevant and proportional to damages.

Novartis’s Motion to Compel

The court granted Novartis’s request for communications between Krapf and current or former Novartis employees to the extent the communications were relevant to her work at Novartis or to the claims and defenses. This included relevant communications sent from Krapf’s Merck email address. The court noted that Krapf had agreed to produce the communications and encouraged an additional forensic phone search to avoid possible disputes about lost evidence.

The court rejected Novartis’s request for all of Krapf’s social-media data from January 1, 2016, to the present as disproportionate. Instead, Krapf’s counsel was required to review that data and produce communications or other content concerning her emotions, feelings, or mental state; events reasonably expected to cause significant emotional effects; Novartis, her employment, or the end of that employment; and her search for employment afterward.

Disposition

The court ordered that Krapf’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion under Rule 30(d)(3) was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It ordered that Novartis’s Motion to Compel Discovery, for Additional Time to Complete Krapf’s Deposition, and for Sanctions was also GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Any discovery compelled by the order had to be produced within 14 days. The opinion states that some portions of the motions had been resolved orally at the hearing, but this written order resolved the remaining disputes.