Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Background

Daniel’la Deering, an attorney, sued Lockheed Martin Corporation and two supervisors based on her employment and termination. Her claims included race discrimination under federal and Minnesota law, retaliation under federal and Minnesota law, an Equal Pay Act claim, aiding and abetting discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court previously dismissed the Equal Pay Act, aiding-and-abetting, defamation, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. After summary-judgment motions, the court denied Deering’s motion and granted Lockheed Martin’s motion in part, leaving only the retaliation claims for a jury. The court set a trial for June 26, 2023.

Conduct at Issue

Lockheed Martin’s emergency motion sought dismissal as a sanction for alleged perjury and discovery misconduct. Discovery is the process through which parties exchange information and documents before trial. The court found that Deering had been required to update her discovery responses concerning later employment and job applications.

Deering disclosed that she had taken an in-house counsel position with nVent in February 2021. At a November 1, 2021, deposition, she testified that she was employed by nVent and had not looked for other employment after starting there. The court found that this testimony was false because Deering’s employment with nVent had ended on October 22, 2021, and she had accepted an offer from Anaplan on October 12, 2021. Her employment with Anaplan began on November 8, 2021, and paid more in salary and benefits than her nVent position.

The court also found that Deering did not disclose her Anaplan employment to Lockheed Martin or the court until shortly before trial, about nineteen months after she began working there. Her resume submitted with her opposition to summary judgment identified nVent as her current employer and omitted Anaplan. The court further found that settlement letters submitted to a magistrate judge omitted the Anaplan employment and used nVent’s lower salary and benefits in calculating damages. Deering’s later damages disclosures also reported income amounts that the court found were lower than her actual income.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits dismissal as a sanction for discovery abuses. The court also recognized its inherent authority to dismiss a lawsuit for significant abuse of the judicial process. Under the standard cited by the court, dismissal requires clear and convincing evidence that the misconduct occurred and that a lesser sanction would not adequately punish and deter it.

The court found that Deering had lied to Lockheed Martin and the court about her employment and damages, including under oath. It rejected the explanation that harsh questioning caused her statements, finding that the deposition questions were appropriate and that Deering appeared calm and not confused. The court also noted that she did not correct the testimony in her deposition errata sheet.

The court characterized the conduct as intentional, willful, and in bad faith. It concluded that a lesser sanction would be insufficient and that dismissal was appropriate despite being an extreme sanction used sparingly.

Ruling

The court granted Lockheed Martin’s emergency motion for sanctions of dismissal with prejudice. It dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and the dismissed claims could not be brought again in that action. The court denied the listed trial-related motions as moot because the case was dismissed.

The court separately addressed lawyers William Egan and Kaarin Schaffer. It found that both had failed to disclose Deering’s Anaplan employment and higher income in a November 3, 2022, settlement letter, although both acknowledged knowing that information. The court ordered that the order be sent to the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility for any investigation or action it might choose to take concerning Deering, Egan, and Schaffer.