Williams v. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C.

Background

The order addresses discovery disputes identified in Docket Numbers 22 and 23 and Williams’s request to amend her complaint. The opinion does not identify the specific underlying discrimination claims in detail.

Discovery disputes

The court noted that the parties’ earlier letters suggested that the defendants might ultimately produce at least some of the requested documents. It directed the parties to confer again by telephone and discuss each issue in detail while trying to reach a reasonable agreement.

If disputes remained, the parties were required to submit a jointly composed letter describing each dispute and stating the opposing party’s position in detail. Before filing the letter, each side had to have an opportunity to respond to the other side’s written draft, and each side had to be available for telephone consultation during the drafting process. The court stated that it might decide any remaining disputes based on the joint letter.

The court also explained that discovery about discrimination involving other people does not depend on whether the complaint includes a “pattern-or-practice” claim. Depending on the conduct and the people and locations involved, that information might or might not be discoverable in connection with Williams’s own claim.

Request to amend

The court stated that it did not need to reach the defendants’ arguments that the proposed amendment was untimely or lacked a sufficient connection to the case. It relied on Second Circuit precedent stating that a pattern-or-practice case is not a separate, independent cause of action, but another way of proving disparate treatment. The court therefore stated that a complaint cannot be amended to add a standalone pattern-and-practice claim, as Williams appeared to seek.

Because the issue had not been fully briefed and Williams had not yet had an opportunity to respond to the defendants’ arguments, the court granted Williams leave to pursue the issue through a formal motion. The motion had to be filed by January 21, 2021, in compliance with the applicable local rule and the court’s individual practices, and it had to include an unsigned copy of the proposed amended complaint. The deadline did not prevent the defendants from arguing that the motion was otherwise untimely. The order does not state that a formal motion to amend was granted or denied.