Seigel v. Structure Tone Organization

Background

The court had previously granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Among its prior rulings, it concluded that Seigel had not plausibly alleged a breach of implied contract. Seigel moved for reconsideration, moved for leave to amend his complaint, and opposed the defendants’ request for a protective order governing confidential discovery.

The opinion identifies Seigel as proceeding without a lawyer. His existing claims included discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against Structure Tone and Pavarini, a retaliation claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act against all defendants, and an implied-contract claim against Structure Tone and Pavarini.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court agreed with Seigel that his allegations plausibly stated an implied-contract claim.

Seigel alleged that he was presented with and required to sign Structure Tone’s anti-retaliation policy. The policy stated that the company was committed to protecting employees who raised matters in good faith, required employees to report suspected policy or legal violations, and promised that employees who reported potential violations would not face reprisal or adverse employment action. Seigel further alleged that he relied on the policy when he complained to Yardis and Melanophy about suspected violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, and that his employment was terminated as a result.

The court found that these allegations plausibly suggested that the written policy limited the defendants’ right to terminate Seigel’s employment and that Seigel relied on the policy to his detriment. The court therefore granted reconsideration and reinstated the breach-of-implied-contract claim. The court stated that other arguments in the reconsideration motion were not persuasive.

Motion to Amend

Seigel sought permission to add a tortious-interference-with-contract claim against Yardis and Melanophy. The court granted that request because Seigel was proceeding without a lawyer, his implied-contract claim was being reinstated, and a liberal reading of his proposed amended complaint suggested that he might plausibly state the new claim.

The court limited the amendment to adding the tortious-interference claim. The amended complaint had to completely replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint and include all necessary information supporting both the existing claims and the new claim. The court also directed Seigel to include only facts he believed plausibly supported his claims. The court noted that Seigel’s motion to amend did not seek to add an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim.

Protective Order

The defendants requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) governing the disclosure and dissemination of proprietary, trade-secret, and other sensitive nonpublic commercial information, including customer lists, pricing, and revenue information.

Seigel argued that the order would be burdensome, prejudicial, and unnecessary, and asked the court to limit the number of documents the defendants could designate as confidential. The court rejected those arguments. It concluded that certain nonpublic commercial information involved in the claims and defenses warranted protection and that Seigel’s proposed numerical limit was arbitrary and unsupported.

The court granted the motion for a protective order and ordered that the defendants’ proposed protective order govern the production and dissemination of confidential discovery. The opinion notes that the proposed order allowed Seigel to share documents marked confidential with any pro bono lawyer he consulted and with certain family members.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for reconsideration and reinstated Seigel’s breach-of-implied-contract claim. It granted the motion for leave to amend, subject to the stated limitations, and directed Seigel to file the amended complaint by November 4, 2020. It granted the defendants’ motion for a protective order. The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motions.