Hylton v. Hasten Beds, Inc.

Background

Alisha Ann-Marie Hylton, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights and employment-discrimination action against Hästens Beds, Inc. and Hästens Sänger AB. The opinion describes Hylton as an African-American woman born in Jamaica who worked for Hästens managing retail sales and operations in the United States. She alleged that she was paid less than men who previously held the same position, was passed over for a promotion in favor of a white employee, experienced discriminatory comments, and was fired after raising concerns about workplace practices and other matters.

The opinion addressed two motions made during the litigation. First, Hylton moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike all 24 affirmative defenses asserted by the defendants. Second, she appealed two discovery orders issued by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox: an order dated December 4, 2019, and another dated February 3, 2020.

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

A motion to strike asks the court to remove material from a pleading, including an insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous defense. The court explained that such motions are generally disfavored. To succeed, Hylton had to show that no question of fact or law could allow the defenses to succeed and that keeping them would prejudice her.

The court found that the defendants’ affirmative defenses were sufficiently pleaded. It concluded that any additional factual detail could be developed through discovery and that the defendants were not required to identify the specific claim to which each defense applied. The court also found that Hylton had not shown prejudice. The defendants had withdrawn their Fifteenth Affirmative Defense as duplicative of their Seventh and had withdrawn their Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defense because Hylton apparently was not asserting an intentional- or negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. The court nevertheless denied Hylton’s motion to strike all of the affirmative defenses.

Appeal of Discovery Orders

The court reviewed Judge Fox’s nondispositive discovery orders under the standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under that standard, the district court would set aside an order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court also explained that new evidence, arguments, and factual assertions generally cannot be raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s discovery order.

The defendants argued that Hylton’s appeal was untimely. The court determined that the February 3, 2020 order was challenged within the deadline the court had set. As to the December 4, 2019 order, the court excused any default in the interests of justice and reviewed Hylton’s objections.

Hylton primarily sought production of the laptop she had used during her employment, including its contents, emails, and files. She argued that the failure to produce it violated the federal discovery rules and involved the destruction of evidence. The court declined to consider the destruction-of-evidence issue because Hylton had not raised it before Judge Fox. The court also noted that Judge Fox apparently had not denied the laptop-related request but had stated that the issue had been resolved at an earlier conference.

The court found no clear error or legal violation in Judge Fox’s other discovery decisions. Those decisions treated some requests for salary information as overbroad because the employees were not similarly situated to Hylton, treated requests concerning female employees’ comparisons with male colleagues as vague, found that organizational charts had already been produced, and found requests for company financial documents irrelevant, overbroad, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. The court could not review issues that the challenged orders had not addressed.

Ruling

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Hylton’s motion to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses and denied Hylton’s appeal of Judge Fox’s December 4, 2019 and February 3, 2020 discovery orders. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate any open gavels and mail a copy of the order to Hylton. The opinion decided these pleading and discovery issues; it did not decide the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims.