Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC.

Background

The order addresses the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s November 5, 2020 order. The earlier order denied the plaintiffs’ request for additional document discovery concerning alleged “boys-club” evidence from three senior Goldman leaders. Each executive had at one time served on Goldman’s firmwide Management Committee.

The requested discovery related to class-certification issues involving three employment processes: quartiling, 360 reviews, and cross-ruffing. The court previously found that the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence showing that the executives made decisions about those processes, particularly in relation to their application and effect on gender disparities. The court had allowed depositions of two executives because they might have relevant knowledge, while leaving open whether the depositions would produce evidence supporting additional discovery.

Motion for Reconsideration

The plaintiffs did not identify a controlling decision or data that the court had overlooked. Instead, they argued that the court’s earlier permission to depose two executives contradicted the court’s conclusion that there was not enough connection between the executives and the three processes.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that allowing the depositions recognized only that the executives might have relevant knowledge and gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to determine whether they had played a role in the three processes. It did not establish that they actually had such knowledge.

The plaintiffs relied on recent deposition testimony from Lloyd Blankfein. The court found that the testimony showed Blankfein’s significant involvement in Goldman’s general diversity efforts, but not his direct involvement with quartiling, 360 reviews, or cross-ruffing. The testimony also showed that he knew of certain quartiling statistics indicating potential gender disparities, but did not address whether the quartiling process itself caused or affected those disparities.

The plaintiffs also relied on two documents presented to, or reflecting information provided to, Blankfein as a member of Goldman’s firmwide board of directors. One was a diversity task force report discussing the disproportionate effect on women of failures in formal processes and recommending changes to career development, performance management, promotions and advancement, and compensation. The other appeared to be minutes from a board presentation about a 2015 “people survey.” Those minutes discussed Goldman’s progress or lack of progress on diversity, information about evaluation, promotion, and retention of women compared with men, and the board’s plan to hold Blankfein and another executive, Cohn, accountable for improving diversity.

The court concluded that neither document sufficiently connected the executives to the three specific processes at issue. It therefore found no basis to order further production of the requested “boys-club” evidence.

Motion to Strike and Disposition

The plaintiffs also moved to strike Goldman’s sur-reply opposing reconsideration. The court denied that motion. It noted that Goldman had asked the court to accept the sur-reply rather than assuming the court would do so, and that the sur-reply mainly supplied additional Blankfein testimony and context for excerpts submitted by the plaintiffs. The court stated that the sur-reply did not affect the result because it reached the same decision with or without considering it.

United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and denied the motion to strike Goldman’s sur-reply. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate the motions listed at Docket Numbers 1100 and 1120.