CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
James Peterson, David Olson, Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnbull, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, and Ronald Wrase, for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs.
COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC
Defendants.

Plaintiffs named above, for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated I all Opt-In Plaintiffs (collectively referred to hereinafter as "Plaintiffs"), for their complaint against Defendants (collectively "Seagate"), state and allege as follows:

SCANNED/
M~Y25Zw

1

U.S. DISTRICTr~LS

----- ______________________________________.

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 15
Jurisdiction and Venue I. This is collective and individual age discrimination case. Seagate engaged in disparate treatment of older employees with regard to the terms and conditions of employment and termination. Seagate engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination in connection with terminations, selection process, opportunities for open positions and hiring. 2. Plaintiffs seek relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA''), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
u.s.c. § 1331.
3. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, relating to the enforceability of a purported release and waiver signed by many of the Plaintiffs. The EEOC determined that "the evidence obtained during the course of the investigation establishes reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Part(ies) [have] been discriminated against based on age, and that a class of employees has been discriminated against based on age," and "the evidence obtained establishes reasonable cause to believe that [Seagate's] Special Separation Agreement and Release violates EEO statutes because it requires an employee to waive his/her right to file an EEOC Charge of Discrimination." 4. This action is brought under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of the Plaintiffs named above and all persons similarly situated who choose to opt in under procedures applicable to age discrimination claims. Declaratory relief is sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
2

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 15

5. Venue of this action in the United States District Court for the District of

Minnesota is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the Plaintiffs were employed

and terminated here, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to these claims

occurred here.

6. All conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit have been met. Plaintiffs

Olson and Peterson timely filed charges of age discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and cross-filled with the Minnesota Department of

Human Rights ("MDHR"). Seagate, the EEOC and the MDHR were placed on notice that

the claims were filed on behalf of all persons similarly situated, and that collective and

class litigation was contemplated. Other terminated employees over age 40 that did not

file charges within 300 days are "piggybacking" on the charges of Plaintiffs Olson and

Peterson. The EEOC treated Plaintiffs Olson and Peterson's charges as class/collective

charges. The EEOC issued Right to Sue letters on February 27,2007.

Parties

7. Seagate employed each named Plaintiff in its Minnesota facilities for many years

and in the job capacity noted. All Plaintiffs were over the age of 40 at the time Seagate

terminated their employment:

•

James Peterson, resident of Eden Prairie, MN, Sr. Development Engineer when

fired;

•

David Olson, resident of St. Paul, MN, Staff Development Engineer when fired;

•

Paul Calcagno, now a resident Palm Coast, FL, Engineering Director when

terminated;

3

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 4 of 15

•

Rebecca Chwialkowski, resident of Bloomington, MN, Executive Assistant,

Engineering when fired;

•

Gary Egbert, resident of Apple Valley, MN, Sr. Director of Engineering when

fired;

•

Narenda Garg, resident of Minnetonka, MN, Sr. Staff Engineer when fired;

•

Luana Goodnough, Prior Lake, MN, Sr. Administrative Assistant, Engineering

when fired;

•

William Grunwald, resident of Apple Valley, MN, Sr. Advisory Development

Engineer when fired;

•

David Hurd, resident of Edina, MN, Sr. Advisory Development Engineer when

fired;

•

Rick Kehrwald, resident of Bloomington, MN, Sr. Engineer when fired;

•

David Legut, resident of Bloomington, MN, Engineering Specialist when fired;

•

Karen Lieberg, resident of Hutchinson, MN, Engineering Support Technician when

fired;

•

Charles Lucas, resident of Burnsville, MN, Sr. Engineering Technician when fired;

•

Daniel Michael McDaniel, resident of St. Paul, MN, Maintenance Technician,

Engineering when fired;

•

Theresa Raskob, resident of Chaska, MN, Sr. Department Administrative

Specialist, Engineering when fired;

•

Thomas Schaff, resident of Fridley, MN, Sr. Engineer when fired;

•

Jane Thomes, resident of Burnsville, MN, Shipping/Receiving Clerk, Engineering

when fired;

4

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 5 of 15

•

Keith Turnbull, resident of Richfield, MN, Engineer when fired;

•

Susan Walseth, resident ofLino Lakes, MN, Engineering Specialist when fired;

•

Lee Walter, resident of Plymouth, MN, Sr. Development Engineer when fired;

•

Ronald Wrase, resident of Savage, MN, Business Staff Project Manager,

Engineering when fired.

8. Seagate is a foreign corporation doing business in Minnesota. Seagate has

Minnesota facilities in Bloomington and Shakopee. For the purposes of this Complaint, the

term "Seagate" is intended to cover all legal entities that employed one or more of the

Plaintiffs at the time of their termination, including the entities above-named and any and

all divisions of the above-named entities.

9. Seagate is an employer within the meaning of the ADEA.

10. Each Plaintiff named in the caption of this case has consented to become a party

Plaintiff in this action and a class representative as appropriate.

Statement of Claims

11. Each Plaintiff was terminated pursuant to the same corporate pattern or practice and

is similarly situated, including but not limited to: being over age 40, treated adversely,

terminated in mass terminations in 2004, geographic location, similar untruthful reasons

given for termination, qualified for the position or positions he or she held, and able to

perform his or her duties in a satisfactory manner.

12. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class because they were 40 years of age or

older at the time Seagate terminated their employment.

13. Plaintiffs were qualified by training and experience to perform, and were

satisfactorily performing, the functions of their positions.

5

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 6 of 15

14. Despite Plaintiffs' qualifications, Seagate subjected Plaintiffs to adverse treatment

in tbe terms, conditions and privileges of their employment and termination due to their

age. Specific instances of adverse treatment, pattern or practice, and policy infected by age

discrimination includes, but is not limited to, tbe following:

a. Terminating the Plaintiffs' employment;

b. Transferring older workers to jobs or departments which were planned to be

phased out or eliminated;

c. Consciously deciding not to comply witb the Older Workers Benefit

Protection Act;

d. Taking responsibilities away from older employees and giving them to

younger, less qualified employees;

e. Claiming to "eliminate" jobs that were not eliminated;

f. Instructing older employees to train in tbeir younger replacements;

g. Telling older employees that they lacked skills that they in fact had;

h. Hiring younger employees shortly before and after firing tbe Plaintiffs;

1. Failing to transfer older employees into open positions;

J.

Terminating older employees who would not agree to retire;

k. Retaining younger employees with worse performance records tban older

employees;

l. Responding (a Seagate executive) to a question about criteria used for

termination decisions with: "If they are older tbey do not need to be around

here any longer.";

6

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 7 of 15

m. Failing to hire, to interview and at times to even acknowledge the

applications of qualified, terminated older Plaintiffs for open positions;

n. Asking (Seagate management) older employees "why don't you retire?" ;

o. Using systemic, company-wide criteria and/or rankings for terminations that

were subjective and that evidenced ageism;

p. Excluding recently hired younger employees from the mass firings;

q. Pressuring older employees to choose between retiring (Special Incentive

Retirement Program) or firing;

r.

Transferring younger employees to "safe" positions before and during the

terminations; and

s. Indicating a preference for a younger workforce by using such terms as,

"new blood" and "new degrees".

15. By the time Seagate concluded its firings, well over half of the employees who lost

their jobs were over the age of 40, when including those effected by the "Special Incentive

Retirement Program ("SIRP").

16. Plaintiffs and other terminated Seagate employees received a package of materials

from Seagate, including, a Special Separation Agreement and General Release of claims

which purported to release all claims against Seagate, including claims for age

discrimination under the ADEA.

17. Seagate Human Resources employees asked the terminated employees to sign the

releases immediately, without allowing them to consider it or to consult with an attorney.

Seagate Human Resources employees stood at the door of the facility to collect the signed

releases from the terminated employees.

7

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 8 of 15

18. Seagate failed to comply with the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act

(OWBPA) 29 U.S. C. § 626(f). Employers are held to strict compliance of the act. Non-

compliance in any respect voids releases of the ADEA claims. Seagate's violations of the

Act include, but are not limited to:

•

misrepresenting the number of employees selected for termination:

•

omitting employees from the list of employees selected for termination;

•

failing to write the materials in a manner calculated to be understood by the average

individual eligible to participate; and

•

ignoring other requirements of the 0 WBPA, including, but not limited to, failing to

disclose the selection criteria I eligibility factors used to select the individuals

chosen for termination.

19. Seagate also violated the OWBPA 29, U.S.C. § 626 (f)(4), by requiring individuals

to waive their rights to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC

determined that Seagate's Special Separation Agreement and Release violated EEO

statutes because it required an employee to waive their rights.

20. The releases are invalid under the OWBPA, as to all signatories, because they were

induced to sign the release by Seagate's misrepresentations. Plaintiffs and others

terminated in the July 2004 group termination were informed that their positions were

being eliminated, but in fact, many of the Plaintiffs' positions were not eliminated.

21. Plaintiffs' receipt and retention of benefits under the terms of the invalid release

does not, as a matter of law, constitute a ratification of the release itself.

22. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief from this Court. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask the

Court to declare that Seagate's failure to comply with the OWBPA and the regulations

8

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 9 of 15
promulgated thereunder render the release invalid as against federal age discrimination claims, and that Plaintiffs may proceed in spite of signed releases. This will facilitate the swift administration ofjustice.
Count I Age Discrimination (Disparate Treatment)
ADEA Collective Action 23. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation and averment made above as though fully set forth herein. 24. This is a representative action under 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) and (c) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) by the above-named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons who opt into this action by filing appropriate notice. 25. As elsewhere more fully set forth in this Complaint, Seagate engaged in disparate treatment and an unlawful pattern or practice of age discrimination that adversely affected Plaintiffs, and each of them, and other similarly situated former Seagate employees in violation of29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 26. The disparate treatment and unlawful pattern or practice of age discrimination by Seagate alleged herein constitutes a willful violation of the ADEA. 27. Plaintiffs' charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC asserted claims on behalf of both the Plaintiffs themselves and others similarly situated, and adequately placed Seagate on notice that a collective action would be forthcoming. 28. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were adversely affected by the disparate treatment and pattern or practice of unlawful, willful age discrimination by Seagate as elsewhere described herein. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated suffered actual
9

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 10 of 15
damages in the form of lost salary and wages, bonuses, stock options, fringe benefits, retirement and insurance benefits, and other forms of compensation, as well as loss of career opportunity and advancement, costs of seeking alternate income, and in other respects, all in amounts yet to be determined, but reasonably believed to exceed $100,000 per Plaintiff.
Count II Age Discrimination (Disparate Impact)
ADEA Collective Action 29. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation and averment made above as though fully set forth herein. 30. This is a representative action under 29 U.S.C. § 626 (b) and (c) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) by the above-named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons who opt into this action by filling an appropriate notice, and an individual action under the ADEA. 31. As set forth more fully above, Seagate has utilized practices, policies, and procedures that have disparately impacted former employees of Seagate, resulting in an unlawful pattern or practice of age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, 29 U.S. C. § 621 et seq. 32. The above-named Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were disparately impacted by Seagate's practices, policies and procedures, in violation of the ADEA. 33. Each of the above-named Plaintiffs has been disparately impacted by Seagate's practices, policies and procedures, in violation of the ADEA. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid age discrimination by Seagate, each of the Plaintiffs has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but
10

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 11 of 15
reasonably believed to exceed $100,000 per Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, lost salary, bonuses, stock options, and other forms of compensation, lost retirement benefits, insurance benefits and other employee benefits.
Count III Age Discrimination (Disparate Treatment)
Individual Claims 35. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation and averment made above as though fully set forth herein. 36. Seagate discriminated against each named Plaintiff herein because of his/her age in willful violation of the ADEA by engaging in disparate treatment, a pattern or practice of age discrimination, elsewhere described in this Complaint, and by terminating each Plaintiffs employment. 37. As a direct and proximate result of Seagate's unlawful and willful age discrimination against them, each individual Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to, lost salary and wages, bonuses, stock options, fringe benefits, retirement and insurance benefits, and other forms of compensation, as well as loss of career opportunity and advancement, costs of seeking alternate income, and in other respects, all in amounts yet to be determined, but reasonably believed to exceed $100,000 per Plaintiff.
11

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 12 of 15
Count IV Declaratory Judgment
28 u.s.c. § 2201
38. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and every allegation and averment made above as though fully set forth herein. 39. All named Plaintiffs, except Olson and Peterson, signed the standard form release presented by Seagate in conjunction with the July 2004 terminations. 40. An actual controversy of a judicial nature exists between Plaintiffs and Seagate regarding whether the releases signed by Plaintiffs constitute valid waivers of Plaintiffs' age discrimination claims under the ADEA. 41. A declaratory judgment with respect to the validity of the releases would terminate any and all uncertainty and controversy with respect to the rights of signing Plaintiffs to sue Seagate for age discrimination under the ADEA. 42. Plaintiffs seek the declaratory judgment ofthis Court, under the authority 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the Special Separation Agreement and General Release of claims is invalid under the OWBPA for the reasons outlined in this Complaint, including but not limited to, its requirement that the employee waive his/her right to file and EEOC Charge of Discrimination in violation of29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 and precedent. 43. Plaintiffs further seek the order of this Court in compliance with precedent (see, e.g., Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998); Butcher v. Gerber Products Co., 8 F.Supp.2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and 29 C.F.R. § 1625.23 that Plaintiffs may assert
12

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 13 of 15
their claims without returning cash benefits or suffering a discontinuation of other benefits during this case.
JuaDemand 44. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Seagate as follows: 1. Finding in favor of Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated that Seagate violated theADEA; 2. Finding in favor of Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated that Seagate willfully violated the ADEA; 3. Permanently restraining Seagate from ever again discriminating against Plaintiffs or any other individuals on the basis of that individual's age; 4. Awarding each of the Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs back pay and other appropriate compensation and benefits under the ADEA, together with interest thereon; 5. Restoring each of the Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs to positions comparable to those from which they were terminated or, in lieu of reinstatement, awarding each Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiff front pay and benefits under the ADEA from the period remaining until that person's expected retirement age; 6. Awarding each Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffliquidated damages pursuant to the ADEA in an amount equal to that person's back pay and benefits award, together with interest thereon;
13

--------------------------------------------------------
CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 14 of 15 7. Declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to test the validity of the releases of age discrimination under the ADEA in a court oflaw without tendering back any benefits received, or suffering a discontinuation of benefits to be received, pursuant to said release, regardless of whether said release is ultimately determined to comply with the OWBPA; 8. Declaring that the releases of age discrimination under the ADEA presented by Seagate to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of Seagate are invalid as a matter of law, that said releases were not and cannot as a matter of law be ratified, and that Plaintiffs and other Opt-In Plaintiffs who signed such releases are entitled to keep the benefits received and to continue to receive said benefits while pursuing rights under the ADEA; 9. Awarding attorneys fees and costs as appropriate pursuant to the relevant statutes; 10. Awarding prejudgment interest, costs and disbursement as appropriate herein; and II. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court and/or jury deems equitable, appropriate and just.
14

------------------------------------
CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/25/07 Page 15 of 15

Dated: ___5"--t/<-=:~z.-'-=5'-'A"-·-'-,:-'-;z-
Dated:

BERTELSON LAW OFFICES, P.A.
Beth E. Bertelson (#186806) Andrea R. Ostapowich (#0320006) 101 Union Plaza 333 Washington Ave. North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 278-983 Facsimile: (612) 340-0190
DORENE R. SARNOSKI LAW OFFICE
~~--
Dorene R. Samoski (#212933) 101 Union Plaza 333 Washington Ave. North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 359-0050 Facsimile: (612) 340-0919
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 120 Filed 10/24/08 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al., for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ORDER
Civil No. 07‐2502

Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________

Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office Law Office for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson and Susan K. Fitzke, Littler Mendelson for and on behalf of Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion to authorize notice

to potential class members pursuant to Hoffman‐LaRoche v. Sperling, 493 U.S.

482 (1989).

Background

This is an action in which Plaintiffs allege they were discriminated against

1

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 120 Filed 10/24/08 Page 2 of 7
on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they were all over the age of forty when their employment with Seagate terminated in 2004, and that they were terminated pursuant to a corporate pattern or practice to terminate employees on the basis of age. Complaint ¶¶ 7 and 11. In support, Plaintiffs point out that by the time Seagate concluded its firings in 2004, over half of the employees who lost their jobs were over the age of forty. Id. ¶ 15.
Plaintiffs further allege that at the time of their termination, they received a package of materials including a Special Separation Agreement and General Release of claims which purport to release all claims against Seagate, including age discrimination claims under the ADEA. Id. ¶ 16. Seagate Human Resources asked the employees to sign the releases immediately without allowing them the opportunity to consult with an attorney. Id. ¶ 17. Human Resources personnel then stood at the door of the facility to collect the signed releases as the terminated employees were leaving. Id.
By Order dated November 20, 2007, this Court rejected the Defendants’ argument that those plaintiffs who signed a release could not maintain a claim in this action. Thereafter, by Order dated May 28, 2008, this Court granted
2

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 120 Filed 10/24/08 Page 3 of 7
Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the releases signed by those named plaintiffs who lost their jobs during the 2004 RIF are invalid as a matter of law. The Court did not, however, find as a matter of law that the release signed by plaintiff Calcagno, who was terminated pursuant to the 2004 SIRP, was invalid as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs now move the Court for an order authorizing notice to be sent to potential class members ‐ that is “all former Seagate employees who were affected, along with the named plaintiffs, by Seagate’s group termination in 2004.” Standard
The ADEA incorporates enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Relevant to this motion is the provision which provides that an age discrimination claim may be brought “by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and others similarly situated.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This section further provides that “[n]o employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party . . . “ In Hoffman‐LaRoche, the Supreme Court held that a district court has discretion, in appropriate cases, to implement §
3

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 120 Filed 10/24/08 Page 4 of 7
216(b) by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs. 493 U.S. at 486. Whether an action under the ADEA is appropriately brought as a collective
action depends on whether plaintiffs are “similarly situated” ‐ and this question is governed by a two‐step inquiry. Pagliolo v. Guidant Corp., Civil No. 06‐943, 2007 WL 2892400, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2007) (citing Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1102 (10th Cir. 2001)). The first step occurs early in the litigation, and requires only that plaintiffs establish a colorable basis for their claim that the putative class members are the victims of a single decision, policy or plan. Id. Plaintiffs must, however, demonstrate some factual basis beyond the mere averments in their complaint. Id. at *2.
The second step occurs after discovery is completed, at which time the Court employs a more stricter standard. Id. (citing Kalish v. High Tech. Institute, Inc., 2005 WL 1073645, at *2 (D. Minn. April 22, 2005)). For example, the Court must consider the extent and consequence of disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs, available defenses and other fairness and procedural considerations. Id. (citing Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1102‐03).
Because discovery is not yet completed, the Court will apply the standard described above for the first step of the applicable inquiry.
4

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 120 Filed 10/24/08 Page 5 of 7
Plaintiffs assert that they have easily met the requirements of this more lenient standard. Plaintiffs allege that over half of the employees chosen for termination in 2004 were over the age of 40. Plaintiffs further allege that Seagate has recognized that the 2004 RIF was a single, all‐business policy that was put into practice as a company‐wide plan. (Doc. No. 38; Bertelson Aff., Ex. 1, 7 and 8 (power point presentations)). From the top down, managers were instructed not to think of terminations as within their departments, but wholistically within the company. (Bertelson Aff., Ex. 2). Plaintiffs have also submitted a number of affidavits from the named plaintiffs, describing the particular circumstances surrounding their termination, which generally describe situations in which they were forced to train their younger replacements, or that it was apparent the company’s workforce was generally becoming younger.
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that there was no company wide policy implemented during the 2004 reduction of its workforce. Rather, it operates a number of facilities across the U.S., and that each facility differs in its primary business function. Because each facility is specialized, Defendants generally rely on local managers to assess project criticality and employee skills and to make staffing decisions. Defendants assert that identifying which
5

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 120 Filed 10/24/08 Page 6 of 7
employees would be selected for layoff was a completely local decision. Defendants further argue that the named plaintiffs are not similarly situated ‐ Peterson and Olson did not sign releases, while the other plaintiffs did, and plaintiff Calcagno participated in the voluntary retirement program, while the others were laid off pursuant to the RIF. To this Plaintiffs respond that they are similarly situated because they were terminated in 2004 as a result of Defendants’ reduction policy which included a RIF and a SIRP.
At this stage of the litigation, the Court does not take into consideration disputed facts or evidence. The proper time to review such evidence is at the second stage ‐ which generally takes the form of a motion to decertify after discovery is closed.
Based on the relevant case law, and the evidence presented thus far, Plaintiffs have met their minimal burden at this stage. They have put forth sufficient evidence tending to show that employees terminated in the 2004 RIF and the SIRP were subject to a company‐wide policy, that over half of the terminated employees were older than 40, and that many were replaced by younger, less experienced workers. See, Pagliolo v. Guidant, 2007 WL 2892400 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2007); Burch v. Qwest Comm., 500 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Minn.
6

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 120 Filed 10/24/08 Page 7 of 7

2007); Koren v. Supervalu, Inc., Civil No. 00‐1479 (D. Minn. 2001); Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 222 F.R.D. 483 (D. Kan. 2004).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED; 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Authorize Notice to Potential Class Members
Pursuant to Hoffman‐LaRoche v. Sperling [Doc. No. 103] is GRANTED. 2. Defendants must provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel the names and
addresses of all individuals who were employed by Defendants in any United States location and who were 40 years of age or more on the date in 2004 when Defendants offered them a retirement separation agreement or a termination separation agreement. 3. The notice to potential class members, “Exhibit A” to Plaintiffs’ Motion, is approved.

Dated: October 23, 2008

s/ Michael J. Davis The Honorable Michael J. Davis Chief Judge of District Court

7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al., for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Civil No. 07‐2502

Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________

Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office Law Office for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson and Susan K. Fitzke, Littler Mendelson for and on behalf of Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

Background

This is a putative class action in which the class alleges it was

discriminated against on the basis of age in violation of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The class also seeks

1

declaratory relief relating to the enforceability of purported releases and waivers signed by many of the plaintiffs.
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the invalidity of the releases. Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non‐moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322‐23 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no disputed issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. This burden can be met “by ‘showing’ ‐ that is , pointing out to the district court ‐ that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. The party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.1995). Analysis
By Order dated November 20, 2007, this Court denied Seagate’s motion to
2

dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the releases were invalid under the law. Subsequently, the Court denied Seagate’s request to file a motion for reconsideration and denied Seagate’s request to certify the November 20, 2007 Order for interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment as to the invalidity of the releases. Plaintiffs assert that there are no genuine issues of material fact, as their motion is based solely on Seagate documents, and that based on such evidence, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The parties agree that the releases at issue herein are governed by the Older Workers Benefits Protections Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). OWBPA was enacted to protect the rights and benefits of older workers. Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427 (1998). The Supreme Court has interpreted OWBPA as providing for a “strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers” and found that it incorporates no exceptions or qualifications. Id. Thus, to comply with OWBPA, a waiver must comply with each prerequisite. Thomforde v. Int’l Bus. Mach., Corp., 406 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 2005). Substantial compliance is not adequate. Suhy v. Alliedsignal, 44 F. Supp. 2d 432, 436 (D. Conn. 1999); Hartger v. Int’l Bus. Mach., Corp., Civ. No. 04‐2124, 2005 WL 2095774, at *2 (N.D.
3

Tex. Aug. 31, 2005). The party asserting the validity of the waiver has the burden of proving that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(3).
Pursuant to OWBPA, an individual cannot waive any right or claim under the ADEA unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. A waiver is not considered “knowing and voluntary” unless, at a minimum, the waiver satisfies a number of requirements. 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1). The waiver must: be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the individual, § 626 (f)(1)(A); refer to rights or claims arising under the ADEA, § 626 (f)(1)(B); not waive rights or claims that may arise in the future, § 626 (f)(1)(C); be in exchange for consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual is already entitled, § 626 (f)(1)(D); advise the individual in writing to consult with an attorney, § 626 (f)(1)(E); provide at least 21 days to consider the agreement, or 45 days if offered in a reduction in force (“RIF”), § 626 (f)(1)(F); provide a seven day period to revoke, § 626 (f)(1)(G); and, if offered in connection with an exit incentive program or RIF, inform as to the eligibility as to class, unit, and time limits and the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program and the job titles and ages of those not selected for the program. § 626(f)(1)(H).
4

“The absence of even one of the OWBPA’s requirements invalidates a waiver.” Kruchowski v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 446 F.3d 1090, 1095 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Butcher v. Gerber Prods. Co., 8 F. Supp. 2d 307, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).
Even if the waivers technically meet the requirements set forth in § 626 (f)(1), federal regulations further provide that “[t]he waiver agreement must not have the effect of misleading, misinforming, or failing to inform participants and affected individuals.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(a)(3).
1. Failure to Disclose the Proper Required Information (Job Titles and Ages) of all Terminated Employees at the Normandale Facility with Respect to the 2004 RIF.1
Plaintiffs assert that Seagate did not properly disclose the job titles and ages of all employees terminated in the RIF as required under § 626 (f)(1)(H)(ii) (requiring the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected in the same job classification or organizational unit and those not eligible or selected for the program). Plaintiffs have identified two employees that were terminated from the Normandale facility, who cannot identify themselves on the chart provided.
1No similar challenge was made with regard to the chart concerning the Shakopee facility.
5

These employees are Susan Walseth, 49 years old at the time of her termination, job title Engineering Specialist and James Peterson, age 59 at the time of termination, job title Sr. Development Engineer.
Seagate responds that the charts prepared to show the affected Normandale employees are materially accurate and complete. First, Seagate asserts that Peterson does appear in Seagate’s disclosures. Williams Decl., Ex. 1. Seagate concedes that Walseth does not appear on the chart, and argues that the inadvertent omission of one employee should not render the releases invalid.
Plaintiffs respond that OWBPA requires strict compliance, therefore this Court should not accept Seagate’s argument that the omission of Walseth was not a material misrepresentation. It may be that the inadvertent omission of a particular employee would be enough to affect one other employee’s decision to sign the release.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs note that it remains unclear how many employees were terminated from the Normandale facility pursuant to the 2004 RIF. Initially, it was reported that 154 employees were terminated. In response to an EEOC inquiry, however, the number changed to 152. Then, in response to Plaintiffs’ charge, the number changed to 234. Finally, in later correspondence to the EEOC,
6

the number changed again to 151. Seagate responds that this a complete distortion of the record. At the time
of the 2004 RIF, affected employees were told that 154 Normandale employees would be terminated. Later, in a submission to the EEOC, the number was reported as 151, and later clarified to be 152. Seagate never reported the number to be 234. In a letter to the EEOC, Seagate notified the EEOC that the 2004 workforce reduction affected 234 employees ‐ 83 of which were employees who elected SIRP participation, and the remaining 151 were selected under the RIF. (Compare Bertelsen Aff, Ex. 3 with Supplemental Fitzke Aff., Ex. 35). The latest number provided by Seagate however is 152. Williams Decl., ¶ 6.
Despite the parties’ dispute as to these numbers, the only number of relevance is the number presented to employees at the time of the RIF, and whether that number was accurate. In this case, there is no dispute that employees were told that 154 were affected the by RIF at the Normandale facility, and Seagate now admits the number was actually 152.
Because the evidence is undisputed that the information presented to Plaintiffs with respect to the Normandale facility was not accurate, and OWBPA requires strict compliance, the Court must find that the releases are invalid as a
7

matter of law. In so finding, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that an analysis of whether the information provided was materially misleading is necessary only if the releases first met the prerequisites of § 626 (f)(1)(A)‐(H).
2. Disclosing Numerous Job Categories with Several Different Job Codes Renders Required Disclosures Unintelligible.
Plaintiffs also argue that OWBPA requires disclosure of more than just generic job categories and codes: “In a termination of persons in several established grade levels and/or other established subcategories within a job category or job title, the information shall be broken down by grade level or other subcategory.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 (f)(4)(iii).
Plaintiffs point out that the disclosed charts lists different categories of “Engineer”: Engineer, Engineer Manager, Engineering Specialist, and Sr. Engineer ‐ each with a different job codes. They are not grouped together, nor is there a definition of the job codes. Plaintiffs assert that the presentation of this information was confusing.
Seagate responds that while Plaintiffs may have preferred that the required disclosures were formatted differently, Seagate nonetheless complied with OWBPA by providing the relevant job titles and job codes, as well as ages of the
8

affected employees. Further, all terminated employees were listed in one chart, while the unaffected employees were listed on a separate chart for easy reference. To the extent that Plaintiffs challenge Seagate’s use of job codes, Plaintiffs have created an issue of fact that is not appropriate for summary judgment.
As to this last point, the Court disagrees. In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, Seagate has the burden to demonstrate the lack of genuine issues of material fact, that the waivers strictly complied with OWBPA. Furthermore, as the party asserting the validity of the waiver, Seagate had the burden of demonstrating what the job codes stood for, in order to respond to Plaintiffs assertions that the use of job codes was confusing. Seagate did not do so.
In Raczak v. Ameritech Corp., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that the information required of clause (H)(ii) may be manipulated by the employer who may “want to fiddle with the definition[s] to mask the possible evidence for age discrimination.” 103 F.3d 1257, 1263 (6th Cir. 1997).
Thus, as a speculative example, if the company had actually decided to fire all the old tax lawyers, but not to touch other lawyers, or to be non‐ discriminatory in its treatment of all other lawyers, it would be in its interest to use a wider category such as all lawyers, to disguise the smaller sub‐unit of discrimination. On the other hand, using very small sub‐units
9

could also mask discrimination because it is much more difficult to show or perceive discrimination when only very small numbers are involved. Id. (internal citations omitted). In this case, without knowing what the job codes stand for, the Court agrees that the charts, as presented, do not provide information in a manner calculated to be understood by the individual employees. Accordingly, the Court finds that the releases signed by those plaintiffs subject to the 2004 RIF do not strictly comply with § 626 (f)(2)(H)(ii) and are therefore invalid as a matter of law. 3. Prohibiting Signers from Filing EEOC Charges Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the releases at issue are invalid as they include waiver language as to the employees’ rights to file charges with the EEOC. See Doc. No. 6; Williams Decl. and attached exhibits. OWBPA provides that waivers shall not affect the EEOC’s rights and responsibilities, and shall not be used to justify interfering with a protected right of an employee to file a charge or participate in an investigation conducted by the EEOC. § 626 (f)(4). Federal regulations further provide that no waiver agreement may include provisions that prohibit the filing of a charge with the EEOC. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 (i)(2)(i). Courts have recognized, however, that as
10

this provision is not included in the minimum requirements for waivers
provided in § 626 (f)(1), the inclusion of a restriction to communicate with the
EEOC does not automatically invalidate the release in its entirety. Wastak v.
Lehigh Valley Health Network, 342 F.3d 281, 289 (3d Cir. 2003).
In stark contrast to the mandatory prerequisites listed for waiver agreements under § 626 (f)(1), [] there is no clear statutory indication that a waiver agreement that contains a provision that runs afoul of the provisions of § 626 (f)(4) is suspect, let alone invalid. Indeed, the language suggests just the opposite. The statute essentially states that, whatever its provisions, a privately executed waiver agreement cannot alter or obstruct the EEOC’s ability to exercise its rights and responsibilities, and that an employer may not invoke a waiver in an attempt to impede an employee’s participation in EEOC procedures. Both requirements appear to contemplate the validity of an underlying waiver of a legal action and deal only with the administrative process ‐ namely, the rights of the EEOC to do its job and the right of the employee to file a claim with the agency. At most, the statutory language can be read to mean only that a provision that purports to, for example, alter the EEOC’s rights to pursue and investigate a claim that is filed, is unenforceable.
Id. See also Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 232 F. Supp.2d 1230, 1242 (D.
Kan. 2002). The Court in Wastak further found that the enactment of the relevant
federal regulations did not change this result.
We note, however, that a regulation that became effective after the incident before us clearly precludes the inclusion of provisions that prohibit resort to administrative process. See 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(i)(2) (“No waiver agreement may include any provision prohibiting any individual from ... [f]iling a charge or complaint, including a challenge to the validity of the
11

waiver agreement, with [the] EEOC.”). The presence of such a prohibition in a waiver agreement that is subject to this regulation could certainly lead a court to find, under proper circumstances, that the waiver “ha[d] the effect of misleading, misinforming, or failing to inform” the plaintiff, 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(b)(4), thus rendering the waiver not “knowing and voluntary,” and, therefore, invalid. But, again, that is not this case.
Id. 342 F.3d at 293, n. 6.
Wastak thus suggests that the Court would have to look to the totality of
the circumstances to determine whether the inclusion of the prohibition on filing
EEOC charges had the effect of misleading, misinforming or failing to inform to
such an extent as to render the entire agreement invalid.
The Court finds that the inclusion of the provision in the releases that
purports to waive the employee’s right to file an EEOC charge or participate in
an EEOC investigation renders only that specific provision invalid as a matter of
law. Applying the reasoning set forth in Wastak, the Court would need to look
to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the inclusion of such a
provision had the effect of misleading, misinforming or failing to inform to such
an extent as to render the entire agreement invalid. Plaintiffs have not, however,
presented the Court any evidence as to whether any of them were mislead by the
inclusion of this particular provision.
12

4. Plaintiff Paul Calcagno Plaintiff Paul Calcagno participated in Seagate’s Special Incentive Retirement Plan (“SIRP”). The release he signed was different in form and content. See Doc. No. 6, Williams Decl., Exs. 2, 21, 22 and 23. Seagate asserts that in Plaintiffs’ moving papers, they made no attempt to demonstrate that the release signed by Plaintiff Calcagno violated OWBPA, therefore summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Calcagno as to the validity of his release is not appropriate. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs assert the Calcagno release is invalid as a matter of law because it contains language prohibiting Calcagno from filing an EEOC charge. As discussed previously, however, the inclusion of such language does not, in and of itself, render the release in its entirely invalid. The question remains whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the inclusion of such a provision had the effect of misleading, misinforming or failing to inform to such an extent as to render the entire agreement invalid. Plaintiffs further argue that Seagate did not provide Plaintiff Calcagno proper decisional unit information. While the release that Calcagno signed provided that he would be given information as to the job titles and ages of all
13

other U.S. employees eligible for and given the opportunity to participate in the SIRP, the only information Calcagno was given concerned only the Bloomington facility. Doc. No. 6, Exs. 2, p. 3 and 21, p. 5.
The federal regulations enacted to assist the courts in determining whether or not employers complied with OWBPA recognize that the identity of a decisional unit is made on a case‐by‐case basis. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22 (f)(3)(ii)(A). The regulations further recognize that the decisional unit is typically no broader than the facility. § 1625.22(f)(3)(ii)(B). While the release document signed by Calcagno provides he was given information concerning the Oklahoma and Shakopee facilities (Doc. No. 6, Ex. 2), the information he was actually provided clearly denotes that the information provided covered only the Bloomington facility (Doc. No. 6, Ex. 21, p. 4). Calcagno therefore cannot argue that he was misled into thinking the information provided covered all three facilities. The Court further notes that Plaintiffs have not challenged the accuracy of that information. Accordingly, on this record, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Calcagno release violated OWBPA because he was not provided the job titles and ages of those employees deemed eligible/ineligible for the SIRP at the Oklahoma and Shakopee facilities.
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 50] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Releases offered to those Plaintiffs terminated pursuant to the 2004 RIF are invalid as a matter of law. Date: May 28, 2008
s / Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis United States District Court
15

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 404 Filed 01/27/12 Page 1 of 1
OAO450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Minnesota

James Peterson, David Olson, Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narendra Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomas, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, and Ronald Wrase, for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
V.
Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC,
Defendants.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Case Number: 07-2502 (MJD/AJB)

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: this action be dismissed with prejudice, and without costs to either party.

January 27, 2012
Date

RICHARD D. SLETTEN, CLERK

s/ J. Zuech

(By)

J. Zuech Deputy Clerk

C:\Documents and Settings\zuech\Desktop\Blank Judgment Form.wpd

Form Modified: 09/16/04

 
 Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al., for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Civil No. 07-2502

Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________
Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office Law Office for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson and Susan K. Fitzke, Littler Mendelson for and on behalf of Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “Seagate) motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Background
This is a putative class action involving claims of age discrimination
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621

1

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 2 of 9
et seq. The class also seeks declaratory relief relating to the enforceability of a purported release and waiver that was signed by many of the plaintiffs upon the termination of their employment with Seagate.
Plaintiffs allege that James Peterson and David Olson both timely filed charges of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (“MDHR”). Complaint ¶ 6. By way of these charges, Seagate, the EEOC and the MDHR were placed on notice that the claims were filed on behalf of all persons similarly situated, and that other terminated employees over the age of forty, who did not file charges within 300 days, were “piggybacking” on the charges filed by Olson and Peterson. Id.
In the Complaint, it is alleged that the named plaintiffs were over the age of forty when their employment with Seagate terminated in 2004, and that they were terminated pursuant to a corporate pattern or practice by Seagate to terminate employees on the basis of age. Complaint ¶¶ 7 and 11. In support, plaintiffs point out that by the time Seagate concluded its firings in 2004, over half of the employees who lost their jobs were over the age of forty. Id. ¶ 15.
Plaintiffs further allege that at the time of their termination, they received a package of materials including a Special Separation Agreement and General Release of claims which purport to release all claims against Seagate, including
2

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 3 of 9
age discrimination claims under the ADEA. Id. ¶ 16. Seagate Human Resources asked the employees to sign the releases immediately without allowing them the opportunity to consult with an attorney. Id. ¶ 17. Human Resources personnel then stood at the door of the facility to collect the signed releases as the terminated employees were leaving. Id.
Plaintiffs allege the releases did not comply with the minimum requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). Specifically, the releases did not comply with OWBPA because they misrepresented the number of employees selected for termination, omitted employees from the list of employees selected for termination, were not written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual eligible to participate, and did not disclose the selection criteria/eligibility factors used to select the individuals chosen for termination. Id. ¶ 18.
Plaintiffs further allege that the releases violated OWBPA because they required them to waive their rights to file charges with the EEOC. Id. ¶ 19. Standard
For the purposes of Seagate’s motion to dismiss, the Court takes all facts alleged in the Complaint as true. Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). Further, the Court must construe the allegations in the Complaint and reasonable inferences arising from the Complaint favorably to Plaintiffs. Morton
3

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 4 of 9
v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). The Court applies those standards in the following discussion. Analysis
Nineteen of the twenty-one named plaintiffs1 signed releases and Seagate now moves to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs who signed the releases. Seagate asserts that dismissal is appropriate as the releases comply with the minimum requirements of the OWBPA.
OWBPA was enacted to protect the rights and benefits of older workers. Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427 (1998). The Supreme Court has interpreted OWBPA as providing for a “strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers” and found that it incorporates no exceptions or qualifications. Id. Thus, to comply with OWBPA, a waiver must comply with each prerequisite. Thomforde v. International Business Machines Corp., 406 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 2005). Substantial compliance is not adequate.” Hartger v. International Business Machines, Corp., 2005 WL 2095774 at *2, No. 04-2124 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2005).
Pursuant to OWBPA, an individual cannot waive any right or claim under the ADEA unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. A waiver is not considered “knowing and voluntary” unless, at a minimum, the waivers satisfies a number of requirements. For example, the waiver must be written in a manner calculated to
1James Peterson and David Olson are the plaintiffs that did not sign the releases.
4

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 5 of 9
be understood by the individual, it should refer to rights or claims arising under the ADEA, it cannot waive rights or claims that may arise in the future, the waiver is in exchange for consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual is already entitled, the individual is advised in writing to consult with an attorney, the individual is provided at least 21 days to consider the agreement 45 if offered in an RIF, a seven day period to revoke, if offered in connection with an RIF the individual is informed of eligibility as to class, unit, and time limits and the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program and the job titles and ages of those not selected for the program. 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). It is Seagate’s position that the releases provided to and executed by the nineteen named plaintiffs meet this minimum requirements.
Plaintiffs have alleged that the waivers are invalid because they do not comply with the prerequisites of OWBPA in many respects. Complaint ¶ 18. To illustrate, Plaintiffs allege that the releases materially misrepresent the number of terminated employees, do not disclose the ages and job titles of all Normandale terminated employees, materially misrepresents the number of Normandale employees age 40 and older that were terminated, fails to disclose full job titles and eligibility factors, prohibits individuals from filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC, fails to identify the proper decisional unit, and pressures individuals to sign the releases immediately. Id. ¶¶ 18-20.
5

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 6 of 9
Plaintiffs further assert that Seagate failed to disclose eligibility factors. The parties dispute what eligibility factors need be disclosed for. Seagate asserts it need only disclose eligibility factors for its severance program, while plaintiffs assert eligibility factors need to be provided for the RIF as well. Pagliolo v. Guidant Corp., 483 F. Supp.2d 847 (D. Minn. 2007)(noting this issue not particularly clear in case law).
Plaintiffs further assert the releases are invalid as they required the signers to waive their rights to file charges with the EEOC. The law is clear that such provisions render a release invalid. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.23. See also, EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 414, 421-22 (D. Md. 2006).
Plaintiffs also assert that the releases are invalid as they do not identify the decisional unit - which is defined as
that portion of the employer’s organizational structure from which the employer chose the persons who would be offered consideration for the signing of the waiver and those who would not be offered consideration for the signing of the waiver. The term “decisional unit” has been developed to reflect the process by which an employer chose certain employees for a program and ruled out others from that program. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(f)(3)(i)(B). It is plaintiffs’ position that the decisional unit at issue in this case is both the Normandale and Shakopee facilities, yet Normandale employees were not given information about Shakopee and visa versa. Failure to provide this information prevented plaintiffs from properly evaluating the information and
6

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 7 of 9
making an informed decision. Seagate responds that its releases did comply with OWBPA, and that
plaintiffs are imposing a hyper-technical statutory application when interpreting the releases. With respect to the allegations that plaintiffs felt pressured to sign the releases immediately, Seagate points out that the written agreement clearly provides that have 45 days within which to decide to sign, and that the written agreement can only be modified in writing. See Cole v. Gaming Entertainment, LLC, 199 F. Supp.2d 208, 213 (D. Del. 2002)(release invalid as verbal communication that employee had one day to sign, even though written agreement provided for requisite 21 days, was insufficient under OWBPA). Seagate further argues that assertions the employees felt pressured to sign is nothing more than the reality that eligibility for separation benefits was lawfully conditioned on signing the release.
Construing the facts as alleged in plaintiffs’ Complaint as true, the Court finds that plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to Count IV. The Complaint contains sufficient allegations that the releases at issue are not valid under OWPBA and that plaintiffs signed the releases under duress.
With respect to the claims for age discrimination, Seagate asserts that dismissal of all named plaintiffs, except for Peterson and Olson, is warranted
7

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 8 of 9
because those plaintiffs did not file a timely charge with the EEOC. Typically, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing an ADEA claim in federal court. Shelton v. Boeing Co., 399 F.3d 909, 912 (8th Cir. 2005). Seagate asserts that in Count III of the Complaint, plaintiffs seek individual (as opposed to collective) relief. As nineteen named plaintiffs did not file an administrative charge with the EEOC, they cannot seek individual relief and cannot piggyback on Peterson’s and Olson’s claims. In support, Seagate cites the Court to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Kloos v. Carter-Day Co., 799 F.2d 397, 400 (8th Cir. 1986). Kloos holds that if a plaintiff has filed an administrative charge, and includes allegations of class-wide discrimination, then each class member would not need to have filed an administrative charge. Seagate construes Kloos for the proposition that the class-wide allegations must also notify the employer that the class members will also seek individual relief. This Court finds that Kloos lends no support to Seagate’s argument.
The Peterson and Olson charges made reference to the July 2004 terminations, that Seagate retained younger, less qualified individuals for ongoing projects, and that Peterson and Olson were bringing charges on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. In this case, similarly situated persons would be those individual affected by the 2004 terminations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Peterson and Olson charges were sufficient to put Seagate on
8

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 9 of 9 notice of the class claims of age discrimination asserted in the Complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED. Date: November 20, 2007

Civil No. 07-2502

s / Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

9

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 392 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, David Olson, Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narendra Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomas, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter and Ronald Wrase, for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC,
Defendants.

Court File No. 07-2502 (MJD/AJB) ORDER

On August 15, 2011, the unders igned C hief United States Di strict Court Judge issued an Order that held, in part, that the “class members terminated through [Seagate’s] SIRP1 are not similarly situated with class memb ers terminated through the RIF, or with each other” and that Seagate’ s “motion to decertify the cl aims of Plaintiffs whose employment was terminated through the SIRP is granted.” (Dkt. 385, p. 14.)

1 “SIRP” is an acronym for Seagate’s voluntary early retirement program referred to as the Special Incentive Retirement Plan or “SIRP”.

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 392 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 2

On August 17, 2011, Defendants subm itted a letter to the Court seeking

clarification pertaining to the disposition of the claims of the na med and opt-in SIRP

Plaintiffs. On August 18, 2011, Plaintiffs submitted a letter settin g forth their position

with respect to Defendants’ request for clarification.

Based upon the submissions of the parties, and all of the files, records, and

proceedings herein, a nd having reviewed the arguments of the parties’ counsel, it is

hereby clarified and ORDERED that:

1. By operation of the A ugust 15, 2011 Order, all claim s asserted by the ni ne

individuals who participated in Seagate’s 2004 SIR P program and w ho opte d-into t his

matter by filing a Consent to Join form (Thang Bui, Gladys Cruz, Diane Dawson, Ronald

Dols, Char les England, Carl Gutersloh, J udith Her nandez, Terr y La ney, and Charles

Mykkanen) as well as all claims asserted by nam ed P laintiff Paul Calcagno, who also

separated his em ployment with Seagate through the 2004 SIRP prog ram, a re dismissed

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2011

BY THE COURT:

MICHAEL

s/Michael J. Davis J. DAVIS
Chief Judge United States District Court

2

 
 Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al., for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Civil No. 07-2502

Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________
Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office Law Office for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson and Susan K. Fitzke, Littler Mendelson for and on behalf of Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ (hereinafter collectively
referred to as “Seagate) motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Background
This is a putative class action involving claims of age discrimination
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621

1

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 2 of 9
et seq. The class also seeks declaratory relief relating to the enforceability of a purported release and waiver that was signed by many of the plaintiffs upon the termination of their employment with Seagate.
Plaintiffs allege that James Peterson and David Olson both timely filed charges of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (“MDHR”). Complaint ¶ 6. By way of these charges, Seagate, the EEOC and the MDHR were placed on notice that the claims were filed on behalf of all persons similarly situated, and that other terminated employees over the age of forty, who did not file charges within 300 days, were “piggybacking” on the charges filed by Olson and Peterson. Id.
In the Complaint, it is alleged that the named plaintiffs were over the age of forty when their employment with Seagate terminated in 2004, and that they were terminated pursuant to a corporate pattern or practice by Seagate to terminate employees on the basis of age. Complaint ¶¶ 7 and 11. In support, plaintiffs point out that by the time Seagate concluded its firings in 2004, over half of the employees who lost their jobs were over the age of forty. Id. ¶ 15.
Plaintiffs further allege that at the time of their termination, they received a package of materials including a Special Separation Agreement and General Release of claims which purport to release all claims against Seagate, including
2

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 3 of 9
age discrimination claims under the ADEA. Id. ¶ 16. Seagate Human Resources asked the employees to sign the releases immediately without allowing them the opportunity to consult with an attorney. Id. ¶ 17. Human Resources personnel then stood at the door of the facility to collect the signed releases as the terminated employees were leaving. Id.
Plaintiffs allege the releases did not comply with the minimum requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). Specifically, the releases did not comply with OWBPA because they misrepresented the number of employees selected for termination, omitted employees from the list of employees selected for termination, were not written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual eligible to participate, and did not disclose the selection criteria/eligibility factors used to select the individuals chosen for termination. Id. ¶ 18.
Plaintiffs further allege that the releases violated OWBPA because they required them to waive their rights to file charges with the EEOC. Id. ¶ 19. Standard
For the purposes of Seagate’s motion to dismiss, the Court takes all facts alleged in the Complaint as true. Westcott v. Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). Further, the Court must construe the allegations in the Complaint and reasonable inferences arising from the Complaint favorably to Plaintiffs. Morton
3

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 4 of 9
v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1986). The Court applies those standards in the following discussion. Analysis
Nineteen of the twenty-one named plaintiffs1 signed releases and Seagate now moves to dismiss the claims of those plaintiffs who signed the releases. Seagate asserts that dismissal is appropriate as the releases comply with the minimum requirements of the OWBPA.
OWBPA was enacted to protect the rights and benefits of older workers. Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427 (1998). The Supreme Court has interpreted OWBPA as providing for a “strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers” and found that it incorporates no exceptions or qualifications. Id. Thus, to comply with OWBPA, a waiver must comply with each prerequisite. Thomforde v. International Business Machines Corp., 406 F.3d 500, 503 (8th Cir. 2005). Substantial compliance is not adequate.” Hartger v. International Business Machines, Corp., 2005 WL 2095774 at *2, No. 04-2124 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2005).
Pursuant to OWBPA, an individual cannot waive any right or claim under the ADEA unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary. A waiver is not considered “knowing and voluntary” unless, at a minimum, the waivers satisfies a number of requirements. For example, the waiver must be written in a manner calculated to
1James Peterson and David Olson are the plaintiffs that did not sign the releases.
4

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 5 of 9
be understood by the individual, it should refer to rights or claims arising under the ADEA, it cannot waive rights or claims that may arise in the future, the waiver is in exchange for consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual is already entitled, the individual is advised in writing to consult with an attorney, the individual is provided at least 21 days to consider the agreement 45 if offered in an RIF, a seven day period to revoke, if offered in connection with an RIF the individual is informed of eligibility as to class, unit, and time limits and the job titles and ages of all individuals eligible or selected for the program and the job titles and ages of those not selected for the program. 29 U.S.C. § 626(f). It is Seagate’s position that the releases provided to and executed by the nineteen named plaintiffs meet this minimum requirements.
Plaintiffs have alleged that the waivers are invalid because they do not comply with the prerequisites of OWBPA in many respects. Complaint ¶ 18. To illustrate, Plaintiffs allege that the releases materially misrepresent the number of terminated employees, do not disclose the ages and job titles of all Normandale terminated employees, materially misrepresents the number of Normandale employees age 40 and older that were terminated, fails to disclose full job titles and eligibility factors, prohibits individuals from filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC, fails to identify the proper decisional unit, and pressures individuals to sign the releases immediately. Id. ¶¶ 18-20.
5

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 6 of 9
Plaintiffs further assert that Seagate failed to disclose eligibility factors. The parties dispute what eligibility factors need be disclosed for. Seagate asserts it need only disclose eligibility factors for its severance program, while plaintiffs assert eligibility factors need to be provided for the RIF as well. Pagliolo v. Guidant Corp., 483 F. Supp.2d 847 (D. Minn. 2007)(noting this issue not particularly clear in case law).
Plaintiffs further assert the releases are invalid as they required the signers to waive their rights to file charges with the EEOC. The law is clear that such provisions render a release invalid. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.23. See also, EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 414, 421-22 (D. Md. 2006).
Plaintiffs also assert that the releases are invalid as they do not identify the decisional unit - which is defined as
that portion of the employer’s organizational structure from which the employer chose the persons who would be offered consideration for the signing of the waiver and those who would not be offered consideration for the signing of the waiver. The term “decisional unit” has been developed to reflect the process by which an employer chose certain employees for a program and ruled out others from that program. 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(f)(3)(i)(B). It is plaintiffs’ position that the decisional unit at issue in this case is both the Normandale and Shakopee facilities, yet Normandale employees were not given information about Shakopee and visa versa. Failure to provide this information prevented plaintiffs from properly evaluating the information and
6

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 7 of 9
making an informed decision. Seagate responds that its releases did comply with OWBPA, and that
plaintiffs are imposing a hyper-technical statutory application when interpreting the releases. With respect to the allegations that plaintiffs felt pressured to sign the releases immediately, Seagate points out that the written agreement clearly provides that have 45 days within which to decide to sign, and that the written agreement can only be modified in writing. See Cole v. Gaming Entertainment, LLC, 199 F. Supp.2d 208, 213 (D. Del. 2002)(release invalid as verbal communication that employee had one day to sign, even though written agreement provided for requisite 21 days, was insufficient under OWBPA). Seagate further argues that assertions the employees felt pressured to sign is nothing more than the reality that eligibility for separation benefits was lawfully conditioned on signing the release.
Construing the facts as alleged in plaintiffs’ Complaint as true, the Court finds that plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to Count IV. The Complaint contains sufficient allegations that the releases at issue are not valid under OWPBA and that plaintiffs signed the releases under duress.
With respect to the claims for age discrimination, Seagate asserts that dismissal of all named plaintiffs, except for Peterson and Olson, is warranted
7

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 8 of 9
because those plaintiffs did not file a timely charge with the EEOC. Typically, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing an ADEA claim in federal court. Shelton v. Boeing Co., 399 F.3d 909, 912 (8th Cir. 2005). Seagate asserts that in Count III of the Complaint, plaintiffs seek individual (as opposed to collective) relief. As nineteen named plaintiffs did not file an administrative charge with the EEOC, they cannot seek individual relief and cannot piggyback on Peterson’s and Olson’s claims. In support, Seagate cites the Court to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Kloos v. Carter-Day Co., 799 F.2d 397, 400 (8th Cir. 1986). Kloos holds that if a plaintiff has filed an administrative charge, and includes allegations of class-wide discrimination, then each class member would not need to have filed an administrative charge. Seagate construes Kloos for the proposition that the class-wide allegations must also notify the employer that the class members will also seek individual relief. This Court finds that Kloos lends no support to Seagate’s argument.
The Peterson and Olson charges made reference to the July 2004 terminations, that Seagate retained younger, less qualified individuals for ongoing projects, and that Peterson and Olson were bringing charges on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. In this case, similarly situated persons would be those individual affected by the 2004 terminations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Peterson and Olson charges were sufficient to put Seagate on
8

Case 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 46 Filed 11/20/2007 Page 9 of 9 notice of the class claims of age discrimination asserted in the Complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED. Date: November 20, 2007

Civil No. 07-2502

s / Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

9

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al., for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Civil No. 07‐2502

Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________

Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office Law Office for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson and Susan K. Fitzke, Littler Mendelson for and on behalf of Defendants. ________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants’ motion for an order to

certify the November 20, 2007 Order for Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1292(b).

1

Background This is a putative class action involving claims of age discrimination
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The class also seeks declaratory relief relating to the enforceability of a purported release and waiver that was signed by many of the plaintiffs upon the termination of their employment with Seagate.
In the November 20, 2007 Order referenced above, this Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of those named plaintiffs that signed a release and waiver. This Court also denied Defendants’ request to file a motion for reconsideration, as Defendants had failed to identify any manifest error of law or fact in the November 20, 2007 Order.
Defendants now move for an order certifying the November 20, 2007 Order for interlocutory appeal. Defendants assert they seek certification on two grounds: 1) whether nineteen plaintiffs who failed to file an EEOC charge properly exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to their age discrimination claims; and 2) whether the SIRP Release that plaintiff Paul Calcagno signed in connection with Defendants’ 2004 voluntary early retirement program is valid and enforceable. Defendants assert there are substantial
2

grounds for a difference of opinion on these legal issues, that if the Eighth Circuit
decided differently would dramatically impact the nature and scope of this
litigation.
Standard
A district court judge may certify an action for interlocutory appeal under
the following circumstances:
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Certification under § 1292(b) should only be used in
exceptional cases “where a decision on appeal may avoid protracted and
expensive litigation.” White v. Nix, 43 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir. 1994).
Analysis
With respect to the first question ‐ whether the nineteen plaintiffs who
3

signed releases failed to exhaust their administrative remedies ‐ Defendants concede that plaintiffs in a collective action may piggyback on charges filed by other class members, as long as the claims asserted are within the scope of the underlying administrative charge. In this case, however, Defendants assert that the administrative charges upon which the above‐referenced plaintiffs seek to piggyback do not mention a release agreement, and this Court’s Order failed to address this fact.
Defendants assert that this is an issue of first impression in this circuit, and that there are substantial grounds to conclude that the Eighth Circuit will find that the claims of the nineteen plaintiffs who signed releases fall outside the scope of the administrative charges filed by plaintiffs Peterson and Olson.
In support of its position, Defendants cite to a number of Eighth Circuit opinions that address the question of exhaustion of administrative remedies. These cases consistently hold, however, that all plaintiffs need not file a separate administrative charge, as long as the charge filed “allege[s] class‐wide age discrimination or claim to represent a class in order to serve as the basis for an ADEA class action under section 216(b).” Kloos v. Carter‐Day Co.,, 799 F.2d 397, 400 (8th Cir. 1986). See also, Ulvin v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins., 943 F.2d 862,
4

865 (8th Cir. 1991) (adopting single file rule, and further noting that there must be some limit to the claims an opt‐in party can assert in order to serve the purposes of the EEOC administrative filing requirements of providing an informal conciliation process and to put the employer on notice of the claims being asserted); Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., 443 F.3d 629, 634 (8th Cir. 2006) (a plaintiff may only seek relief for any discrimination that grows out of or is like or reasonably related to the substance of the allegations in the administrative charge).
Given the consistent basis upon which the Eighth Circuit has addressed the exhaustion question, it is clear that Defendants are simply challenging this Court’s application of settled law on the particular facts of this case. This is not a basis for interlocutory appeal, however. See White, 43 F.3d at 378 (substantial grounds for a difference of opinion exists where the court identifies a sufficient number of conflicting and contradictory opinions.)
With respect to the second question that Defendants seek to certify ‐ the validity and enforceability of the SIRP Release signed by plaintiff Paul Calcagno ‐ Defendants have again failed to demonstrate that the Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff Calcagno’s claims involved a controlling issue of law, as to which there is substantial grounds for a difference of opinion.
5

The November 20, 2007 Order addressed Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants’ motion was denied because the Court found, after taking the allegations in the Complaint as true, and construing those facts and reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiffs, that “The Complaint contains sufficient allegations that the releases at issue are not valid under OWPBA and that plaintiffs signed the releases under duress.” Although the invalidity of the releases was raised in conjunction with this motion, the Court’s holding was not based on the resolution of that issue.
Defendants further assert that this Court should have analyzed plaintiff Calcagno’s SIRP Release separately. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6), however, the Court is concerned only with the sufficiency of the allegations, and the Court determined that like the other plaintiffs that signed releases, plaintiff Calcagno sufficiently alleged he signed the SIRP release under duress.
Defendants have also failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for a difference of opinion warranting interlocutory relief on this issue. First, Defendants incorrectly state that the Release signed by Calcagno did not include a waiver of his right to file a charge with the EEOC. The Release specifically
6

states “I promise never to seek any damages, remedies, or relief for myself
personally (any right to which I hereby waive) by filing or prosecuting a charge
with any administrative agency . . .” (Doc. No. 6, Ex. 2, p. 2) (emphasis added).
As the EEOC is an administrative agency, clearly this provision can be
interpreted as prohibiting the filing of an EEOC charge.
Second, Defendants argue there is no clear authority for the proposition
that the inclusion of an EEOC charge‐filing ban in a release agreement renders
the entire release void. Defendants cite to the decision of Wastak v. Lehigh
Valley Health Network, 342 F.3d 281, 290 (3rd Cir. 2003) for the proposition that
inclusion of a prohibition on filing an EEOC charge in a settlement agreement
does not void the entire agreement. As Plaintiffs point out, however, the decision
itself confirms it is not applicable to the issue raised herein.
We reiterate that this is not a case in which the employer clearly prohibited resort to administrative process, or in which the employee either understood that he was not permitted to file an EEOC charge, or did not do so based on the waiver. To the contrary, the plaintiff here seeks to void a waiver agreement because it contained the word “charge” in the prohibition section, notwithstanding the fact that he in fact pursued an administrative charge and does not contend that he was actually misled or disadvantaged by the language in any way. Wastak came before the district court desirous of proceeding in court, something he clearly agreed not to do. The only issue before us is whether, given the statutory provisions at issue and the facts before us, we would permit him to avoid
7

the agreement he entered into.
We note, however, that a regulation that became effective after the incident before us clearly precludes the inclusion of provisions that prohibit resort to administrative process. See 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(i)(2) (“No waiver agreement may include any provision prohibiting any individual from ... [f]iling a charge or complaint, including a challenge to the validity of the waiver agreement, with [the] EEOC.”). The presence of such a prohibition in a waiver agreement that is subject to this regulation could certainly lead a court to find, under proper circumstances, that the waiver “ha[d] the effect of misleading, misinforming, or failing to inform” the plaintiff, 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(b)(4), thus rendering the waiver not “knowing and voluntary,” and, therefore, invalid. But, again, that is not this case.
Wastak, 342 F.3d at 293, n. 6 (emphasis added).
In another case cited by Defendants, EEOC v. Sundance Rehabilitation
Corp., 466 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2006) the Sixth Circuit acknowledged with approval
the rule adopted by the Fifth Circuit that waivers of the right to file a charge with
the EEOC were void as against public policy. Id., at 499. In discussing the Fifth
Circuit case in which this rule arose, the Sundance court noted that the Fifth
Circuit had determined that a plaintiff could waive her own right to recover in a
lawsuit, and that a waiver to file a lawsuit was not invalid because it was
conjoined with a void waiver of the right to file an EEOC charge. Id. at 498‐99.
The Sixth Circuit did not, however, adopt this particular aspect of the case cited,
8

nor did it need to as the enforceability of the separation agreement was not at issue. Id. at 500. Rather, the court was asked to determine whether the offer of the separation agreement itself was retaliatory. Id.
Finally, Defendants criticize the Court’s reliance on EEOC v. Lockheed Martin, 444 F. Supp.2d 414 (D. Md. 2006) for its finding that prohibitions against filing an EEOC charge render a release invalid. Defendants assert that Lockheed in fact supports its position that inclusion of such a prohibition does not necessarily render the entire release invalid. At issue in Lockheed was whether language in a release agreement was facially retaliatory, not whether a prohibition to file an EEOC charge renders a separation agreement invalid. Id., at 418. In fact, the court explicitly stated that it “does not and need not decide whether Lockheed’s release, to the extent it attempts to waive rights to monetary relief, complies with the requirements of all relevant laws and is enforceable.” Id. n. 8.
As Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the requirements of Section 1292(b) have been met with respect to the two questions it seeks to certify, the motion must be denied.
9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal the November 20, 2007 Order [Doc. No. 66] is DENIED. Dated: February 14, 2008

Civil No. 07‐2502

s / Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis United States District Court

10

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al., for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.

ORDER Civil No. 07‐2502

Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, et al.,
Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________

Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office Law Office for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson and Susan K. Fitzke, Littler Mendelson for and on behalf of Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________

The above‐entitled matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s

objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Chief Magistrate

Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated December 28, 2010 granting Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment as to the Invalidity of the SIRP Releases and denying

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding all claims asserted by

Plaintiff Paul Calcagno. Plaintiffs also object to that portion of the Report and

1

Recommendation rejecting Plaintiffs’ argument that the SIRP Release at issue violated the 45 ‐day consideration period for such releases under federal law.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based on that review the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation dated December 28, 2010.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of 2004
SIRP Releases [Doc. No. 206] is GRANTED; and 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding All Claims
Asserted by Plaintiff Paul Calcagno [Doc. No. 220] is DENIED. Date: February 8, 2011
s/ Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis Chief Judge United States District Court
2

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 265 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al.,
v. Seagate US LLC,

Plaintiffs, Defendant.

Civil No. 07-2502 MJD/AJB
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter is before the Court, Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, on defendant’s motion for protective order [Docket No. 237]. Defendants seek an order prohibiting plaintiffs from conducting discovery relating to a workforce reorganization conducted at Seagate’s Oklahoma City facility in 2003. Hearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2010, at the U.S. Courthouse, 316 No. Robert St., St. Paul, MN 55101. Beth Bertelson, Esq., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Esq., appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. Marko Mrkonich, Esq., and Susan K. Fitzke, Esq., appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Based upon the file, memorandums, exhibits, declarations and affidavits, and arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant Seagate’s Motion for Protective Order is denied as specifically provided herein [Docket No. 237].
2. Defendant’s motion for protective order with respect to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 23, seeking identification of individual employees who were offered transfers as part of the Oklahoma Reengineering Relocation Project for the time frame January 1, 2003 –January 31, 2005, and further seeking specified information regarding each identified individual, is denied. The court has previously ordered that discovery be provided with regard to

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 265 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 3
the Oklahoma City facilities for the time period addressed in the present motion for protective order. Although the court denied plaintiffs’ request for identification and information relating to all employees in its Order dated March 31, 2009,1 on grounds that the discovery was over broad and unduly burdensome, the court expressly determined that such inquiry was relevant to claims in the case and would be allowed if the scope of the requested answers was properly narrowed. This motion is essentially an untimely motion to reconsider the court’s prior decision with respect to relevance [Docket No. 157]. The court finds that the same reasoning under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) applies and the scope of the discovery has been sufficiently narrowed to individuals who were offered transfers as part of the Oklahoma Reengineering Relocation Project. The court finds that Interrogatory No. 23 is consistent with allowable discovery under the March 31, 2009, Order, and the court finds no basis for either reconsideration or modification of pertinent terms of that Order.
3. Defendant’s motion for protective order with respect to plaintiffs’ Document Request No. 42, seeking production of all documents, with metadata, including transfer/relocation packages offered to Oklahoma City employees, is denied. The court finds that the requested material is relevant or the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The discovery is therefore permissible pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and defendant has not persuasively shown that it is entitled to protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) or (c).
4. Defendant Seagate’s request for expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in bringing the motion for protective order is denied.
1 Docket No. 157. Order, ¶ VII. 2

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 265 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 3

Dated: August 2, 2010

s/Arthur J. Boylan Arthur J. Boylan United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM Defendant relies substantially on a contention that the discovery at issue is not relevant because a cause of action could not be maintained by Oklahoma City employees with respect to the 2003 transfer/relocation project. The court is wholly unpersuaded that existence of a cause of action, or not, would dispositively establish relevance for discovery purposes, particularly where the arguable expiration of the statute of limitations is the basis for the defense. In any event, the court has already determined that the information that plaintiff is seeking is not protected from discovery on relevance grounds. See Order dated March 31, 2009 [Docket No. 157].

3

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

JAMES PETERSON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
V. SEAGATE US LLC, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

CIVIL NO. 07-2502 (MJD/AJB) ORDER OPINION

This m atter is before the Court, United Stat es Magistrate Judge Ar thur J. Boylan, on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Com pel Discovery [Docket No. 171] and Defendants’ Motion to Com pel Discovery Responses [Docket No. 168]. A hear ing was held on the m otions on Septem ber 23, 2009. [Docket No. 193.] Dorene Sa rnoski and Beth Bertelson appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Susan Fitzke and Kathryn Wilson appeared on behalf of Defendants.
District courts have broad discretion to limit discovery and decide discovery m otions. Pavlik v. Cargill, Inc., 9 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir. 1993). A discove ry request is relevant unless it is clear that the inform ation sought can have no possible bearing on th e subject m atter of the action. See Mead Corp. v. Riverwood Natural Res. Corp. , 145 F.R.D. 512, 522 (D. Minn. 1992). “The party resisting production be ars the burden of esta blishing lack of relevancy or undue burden.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Lt d. v. Commercial Financial Corp. , 198 F .R.D. 508, 511 (N.D. Iowa 2000).

1

I. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL A. Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 8
Plaintiffs contend that De fendants have neither com plied with Plaintiffs’ “Am ended General Interrogatory N o. 2” (In terrog. No. 2) and “General Inte rrogatory No. 8” (Interrog. No. 8) nor complied with this Court’s March 31, 2009 Order. (Pl.’s Mem. 4-9, Sept. 9, 2009.)
Both parties need a complete list of employees that permits the parties’ experts to conduct statistical analyses. In Februa ry 2009, Defenda nts responded to Plaintiffs’ Interrog. No. 8 and subsequently am ended that response. On Ju ly 29, 2009, Defendants res ponded to Plaintiffs ’ Interrog. No. 2 and provided data related to its employee population on an Excel spreadsheet that included the following data fields: em ployee nam e, current perform ance description, previous performance description, adjusted service date, hire date, job c ode, job grade, fixed annual base salary, job title, job function, job fam ily, highe st degree, business loca tion, supervisory chain, birth date, employm ent status, a nd last day worked. Plaintiffs ra ised a question as to why the number of individuals identified in Defendants’ response to Interrog. No. 8 was different than the number of individuals identi fied in Defendants’ response to Interrog. No. 2. Defendants responded that they have “been clear in informing Plaintiffs that it is investigating this issue in an attempt to determ ine whether em ployees are, in fact, missing from its answer to [Interrog. No. 2]” and “anticipate[] supplem enting its Answer to Pl aintiffs’ [Interrog. No. 2] in advance of the . . . hearing.” (Def.’s Mem. 8-9, Sept. 16, 2009.)
This Court concludes that al l of the data sets requested by Interrog. No. 2 and Interrog. No. 8 are relevant to these pr oceedings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1 ). But, Interrog. No. 2 and Interrog. No. 8 request different sets of data and therefore, the resu lts will not be the sam e. This Court recognizes that Plaintiffs need responses to Interrog. No. 2 and I nterrog. No. 8 that allow
2

Plaintiffs to construc t a com plete list. To do so, there m ust be redundancies in Defendants’ responses to Interrog. N o. 2 and In terrog. No. 8 that perm it Plaintiffs to complete their list. This Court orders that, on or before O ctober 30, 2009, Defendants’ shall provide com plete and accurate responses to Am ended Ge neral In terrogatory No. 2 and General Interrog atory No. 8, and those responses must have an unam biguous and redundant data field(s) that perm its Plaintiffs to combine the responses to both interroga tories into a complete list. This Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion as to Amended General Interrogatory No. 2 and General Interrogatory No. 8 in all other respects.
B. Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 9 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not produced a response to General Interrogatory
No. 9 (Interrog. No. 9). (Pl.’s Mem. 9-10, Sept. 9, 2009.) Plaintiffs furthe r contend that they have proof that Defendants possess the inform ation requested, despite D efendants’ contentions otherwise. ( Id.) Defendants conten d that they do not electron ically track the inform ation requested in Interrog. No. 9, but they can provide a report reflecting any change to job grade, job function, job family, job title, location or supervisor for the period January 1, 2003, to Decem ber 31, 2005, for em ployees listed in Interrog. No. 2, see supra I.A. (Def.’s Mem . 11-12, Sept.16, 2009.) At the hearing, Defendants st ated that they would provide this responsive report within two (2) weeks. Defendants request this Court approve their proffered report as sufficient and fully responsive to Interrog. No. 9. (Def.’s Mem. 12, Sept. 16, 2009.)
This Court is not em powered “to give opinions upon . . . abstract propositions.” Church of Scientology v. United States , 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) (quotation omitted). Thus, this Cou rt is not empowered to rule upon whether o r not information that has yet to be produced com plies with Interrog. No. 9. But, this Court does not believe that
3

Defendants must produce data that is not kept in the ordinary course of business. Thus, this Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent that th is Court orders that, on or before October 15, 2009, Defendants shall provide the complete, nonpriv ileged infor mation responsive to General Interrogatory No. 9 that Defenda nts keep in their ordinary course of business and that Defendants proffered within thei r brief and during the hearing. This Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion as to General Interrogatory No. 9 in all other respects.
C. Plaintiffs’ Requests Nos. 28 & 29 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not complied with Doc. Requests 28 and 29.
(Pl.’s Mem. 13, Sept. 9, 2009.) Re quest No. 28 requests to m eet and confer “for the purposes of determining appropriate fields of infor mation,” but then goes on to request “all HR records . . . for all em ployees.” (Pl.’s Mem . 13-14, Sept. 9, 2009.) Request 29 re quests “all docum ents necessary to identify every field of information contained in the electronic databases.”
To the exte nt that P laintiffs request this Court order th e Defendants to submit affidavits, Plaintiffs’ motion is den ied. (Pl.’s Mem . 17-18, Sept. 9, 2009.) A m otion to com pel will rarely be a proper forum for requesting an adm ission in th e f irst instance. B ut, this Court conc ludes that information regarding Defendants’ HR data fields is relevant to this litigation and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adm issible evidence. However, Plaintiffs Docum ent Request No. 28 is overbroad.
To the extent that Plaintiffs request compliance with Document Requests 28 and 29, this Court grants their motion in p art and denies their m otion in part. This Court orders that, on or before October 30, 2009, Defendants shall provi de nonprivileged inf ormation responsive to Plaintiffs’ request by pr oviding com plete electronic HR r ecords for all Plaintiffs and 50
4

employees randomly selected from Interrog. No. 2. 1 Com plete electronic HR records includes but is not lim ited to data contained in HR MS, Executive Talent Review (ETR), iMap, and eLearning records as well as non -database re cords including but not lim ited rankings and employee profiles like that created by Vice President Ken Allen. The purpose of this Order is to provide P laintiffs with a com plete pic ture of the e lectronic HR data tha t is av ailable, no t necessarily the con tents of the HR docum ents. Thus, Defendants m ay redact the records to preserve objections and em ployee privacy, and De fendants shall am end their privilege log to correspond with all redactions.
Likewise, this Court conclude s that Request No. 29 is ove rbroad in its requ est for explanations, but this Court concludes that th e docum ents requested are relevant to these proceedings. Therefore, this Court o rders that, on or before October 30, 2009, Defendants shall provide nonprivileged documents that are responsi ve to Plaintiffs’ request, but need not produce explanations that they do not keep in the ordina ry course of business. Plaintiffs’ m otion as to Document Requests Nos. 28 and 29 is denied in all other respects.
D. Plaintiffs’ Document Request No. 34 Plaintiffs request “exact copies of Peter Se gar’s hard drives.” (P l.s’ Mem. 11, Sept. 9,
2009.) The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent that this C ourt orders that, on or before October 30, 2009, Defendants shall designate Peter Segar as a sampling custodians and from the 288 megabytes of available data, Defendants sha ll use the agreed upon search term s to produce complete, nonprivileged inform ation that is responsive to Plaintiffs’ request. This Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as to Request No. 34 in all other respects.
1 Defendants shall alphabetize the individuals and provide Plaintiffs with the random numbers used to select the 50 employees.
5

E. Privilege Documents

Pursuant to this Court’s order at th e hearing, Defendants su bmitted to the cham bers for

in-camera review the documents Defendants have withheld based upon the assertion of attorney-

client privilege or work-product doctrine. On October 6, 2009, Plai ntiffs sent a letter to the

chambers in which Plaintiff asserts “that no additional arguments should be submitted without an

opportunity to respond .” First, Defendants su bmitted a letter in which they described the

withheld docum ent and plainly stated the ba sis of the privilege with the words “W ORK

PRODUCT,” “ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRI VILEGE,” or “WORK P

RODUCT AND

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.” This Court does not consider D efendants’ docum ents to

be “additional arguments.” Second, on September 23, 2009, this Court ordered that “Parties may

submit briefing. Briefin g may be filed under seal if necessary.” [Docke t No. 193.] Thus, both

parties are within their right to sub mit “additional arguments.” Th erefore, this Court overrules

Plaintiffs’ objections.

In this case, attorney -client priv ilege, assert ed to protect docum ents from disclosure, is

determined in accordan ce with Minn esota law. See Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co. , 816 F.2d 397,

402 (8th Cir. 1987). The attorney-client privilege attaches to corporations as well as to

individuals. Kahl v. Minnesota Wood Specialty, Inc. , 277 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Minn. 1979). “[T]he

party resisting disclosure bear s the burden of presenting facts to e stablish the privilege’ s

existence.” Kobluk v. U niversity of Minnesota, 574 N.W .2d 436, 440 (M inn. 1998). Minnesota

employs the following definition of attorney-client privilege:

(1) W here legal advice of an y kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) th e communications r elating to that pur pose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the clien t, (6) are at his instance perm anently protected (7) from disclosure by him self or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.

6

Id. at 440 (citing 8 John Henry W igmore, Evidence § 2292, at 554 (McNaughton rev.1961)).
Minnesota has not adopted a distinct test for corporations. Leer v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. Ry.
Co., 308 N.W.2d 305, 309 (Minn.1981); see also In re Bieter Co., 16 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir.
1994) (noting that the Supreme Court in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 396- 97, 101
S. Ct. 677, 686 (1981), declined to adopt a test in favor of a case-by-case analysis).
The decision to terminate an employee is a business decisio n. See, e.g., Walker v. AT &
T Technologies , 995 F.2d 846, 849 (8th Cir. 1993) (concluding that the district court erred by
failing to instruct jury of e mployer’s right to exercise business judgm ent in m aking personnel
decisions). But the decision to terminate an employee can contain legal considerations. See, e.g.,
29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq. (W orker Adjustm ent and Retraining Notification A ct). Further,
communications with an attorney about business decisions do not fall within the protection of
attorney client privilege.
[T]he attorney-c lient privilege does n ot protect clien t communications that relate only busin ess or tech nical data. J ust as the m inutes of business m eetings attended by atto rneys are not automatically privileged . . . busin ess documents sent to corporate officers and e mployees, as well as the corporation’s attorneys, do not becom e priv ileged autom atically. . . . Client comm unications intended to keep the attorney appr ised of business m atters may be privileged if they embody an implied request for legal advice based thereon.
Simon, 816 F.2d at 403-04 (interpreting Minnesota law) (citations and quotation omitted).
The work-product doctrine was established in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct.
385 (1947), and is now expressed in Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Simon, 816 F.2d at 400. Rule 26(b)(3) generally preclud es discovery of “documents and tangible
things that are prepared in anti cipation of litigation or for tria l by or for another party or its
representative,” but perm its di scovery if the docum ents and ta ngible th ings “ are oth erwise
7

discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1) . . . and . . . the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, wit hout undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.”
“[T]he test should be whether, in light of the nature of the document and the f actual s ituation in the p articular c ase, the document c an fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. But the converse of this is that even though litigation is already in prospect, there is no work product immunity for docum ents prepared in the regular course of business rather than for purposes of litigation.” Simon, 816 F.2d at 401 (quoting 8 C. W right & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2024, at 198-99 (1970)). 1. Row 5 Row 5 is th e typed f orm of the notes th at we re produced to Pla intiffs in th eir original handwritten form. Plaintiff cont ends that Row 5 is not protected becaus e they are no tes written by the Vice President of Global staffing, the notes were not for legal advice, and there was no litigation anticipated at the tim e of their cr eation. (Pl.’s Mem. 20, Sept. 9, 2009.) Defendants assert that they were ty ped at the request of counsel and in preparation for litigatio n. (Def.’s Mem. 28, Sept. 16, 2009.) Therefore, row 5 falls w ithin the purview of wo rk-product protection. This Court denies Pla intiffs’ motion as it rela tes to row 5 because Plain tiffs failed to show that they have substantial need for the m aterial and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.
8

2. Rows 26, 28, 32, 342 Plaintiffs contend that the notes labeled as rows 26, 28, 32 , and 34 are not subject to attorney-client privilege because they were not authored o r received by an atto rney. (Pl.’s Mem. Attorney-client priv ilege can attac h to notes prepared by the clie nt in conju nction with communication with counsel. See Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Tonka Cor p., 140 F.R.D. 381, 387 (D. Minn. 1992) (stating that “notes and m emoranda containing client comm unications” can be protected by privilege); U.S. v. Bonnell , 483 F. Supp. 1070, 1077 (D. Minn. 1979) (“Communications f rom the atto rney to th e clien t ar e ordina rily protec ted only if the communications reveal the substan ce of the client’s own statem ents.”); see also In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products L iability Litigation, No. 08-1958, 2009 WL 1178588, *2 (D. Minn. 2009) (stating “handwritten not es of telephone calls with in-hou se counsel regarding follow-up on litigation concerns” are protected unde r the attorney-client privilege). This Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion as it relates to rows 26, 28, 32, and 34 because Defendants m et their burden as to these docum ents. The notes provided for in -camera review reveal legal adv ice and th e substance of the Defendants’ statements.
3. Rows 47 through 67, and 71 through 78 Plaintiffs contend that rows 47 through 67 are ineligible for privilege protection because they reflect business decisions. (P ls.’ Mem. 20, Sept. 9, 2009.) Plai ntiffs contend that rows 71 through 78 are not “communications” and therefore, they are inelig ible for privilege protection. (Pls.’ Mem. 21, Sept. 9, 2009.)
2 Plaintiffs’ initial letter challenges “Rows . . . 3, 32, and 34.” (Pl.’s Mem. 20, Sept. 9, 2009.) Plaintiffs’ letter to chambers from October 6, 2009 challenges “Rows . . . 31 – 24.” This Court will not guess what numbers Plaintiffs mean and will not consider challenges not raised in a proper motion. Plaintiffs provided no briefing on “Row 3” and therefore, this Court deems Plaintiffs’ challenge to be waived.
9

First, rows 48, 56, 59, 60 were disclosed and th erefore, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion as to these rows as moot.
Second, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ m otion as it relates to rows 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75, 76, and 77. Defendants have m et their burden as to these rows. These rows reveal le gal advice and the substance of th e Defendants’ statements. In addition, rows 66 and 67 contain i rrelevant information of a private nature about employees who are not subject to this litigation.
Third, th is Court gran ts Plain tiffs’ m otion as it relates to rows 50 and 55 because Defendants have not met their burden as to thes e rows. Row 50 reflects business advice, not legal advice. Row 55 does not reveal legal advice or the substance of the Defendants’ statements. On or before October 30, 2009, Defendants shall produce rows 50 and 55.
Fourth, this Court denies Plaint iffs’ motion as it relates to row 71. It is evident that this row was written in pre paration f or litigation a nd theref ore, the document is sub ject to workproduct pro tection. Plain tiffs’ have not m et their burden as to necessity to warrant com pelling disclosure.
Fifth, this Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion as it relates to row 78. This Court denies P laintiffs’ m otion as to the first two lin es, but g rants th e m otion as to th e remainder of the document becau se these o ther lines do no t reflec t leg al advice. O n or before October 30, 2009, Defendants shall produce row 78 to Plaintiffs with only the first two lines redacted.
F. Plaintiffs’ Requests for Monthly Case Management Conferences & Extension of Time This Court denies Plaintiffs’ request fo r monthly case m anagement confe rences.
Defendants have no objection as to Plaintiffs re quested extension. But, Plaintiffs’ requested
10

deadline of “60 days from the date Defendants pr ovide Plaintiffs with accura te work force data”
does not prevent this case from “l anguishing.” This Court has ordered Defendants provide
disclosures by October 30, 2009. If Plaintiffs requ ire ad ditional data fields, Plaintiffs m ay
submit an am ended Interrog. No. 2 before Novem ber 12, 2009. Defendants shall provide
responses to any amended Interrog. No. 2 before November 28, 2009.
This Court orders an extension of the curren t scheduling deadlines as follows: Disclosure
of the identity of Class expert witnesses under rule 26(a)(2)(A) and the full disclosures required
by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the expert witness,
will be made as follows. 1. By Plaintiffs on or before February 1, 2010.3 2. By Defendants on or before March 15, 2010.4 3. Rebuttal witnesses on or before April 15, 2010.5
II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL [DOCKET NO. 180] It appears that Defendants are seeking discovery as to Plaintiffs’ mitigation efforts.
A successful ADEA plaintiff must show that he or she attempted to mitigate da mages or face a reduc tion in the d amage award. This duty to m itigate requires a plain tiff to use re asonable diligence in finding other suitable employm ent a nd not to refuse a job that is substantially equivalent to the one at issue.
3 This date was originally set as December 15, 2008. [Docket No. 73.] It was amended to August 1, 2009. [Docket No. 130.] It was amended a second time to November 1, 2009. [Docket No. 167.] 4 This date was originally set as January 1, 2009. [Docket No. 73.] It was amended to September 15, 2009. [Docket No. 130.] It was amended a second time to December 15, 2009. [Docket No. 167.] 5 This date was originally set as February 1, 2009. [Docket No. 73.] It was amended to October 15, 2009. [Docket No. 130.] It was amended a second time to January 15, 2009. [Docket No. 167.]
11

Newhouse v. McCormick & Co., Inc., 110 F.3d 635, 641 (8th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). “The burden rem ains on the em ployer to show that the em ployee f ailed to m itigate his dam ages.” Hartley v. Dillard’ s, Inc., 310 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2002) . Thus, Defendants can conduct discovery as to Plaintiffs’ mitigation efforts because that discovery is relevant to the Defendants’ possible defence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
It appears that Defendants requested from a ll Plaintif fs “Copies of [ their] complete federal and state income tax re turns with all schedul es and attachm ents, from tax year 2004 forward.” Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have faile d to produce 2008 tax docum ents. Plaintiffs cite E.E.O.C. v. Ceridian Corp. for the proposition that federal courts generally resist discovery of tax returns. E.E.O.C. v. Ceridian Corp., 610 F.Supp.2d 995 (D. Minn. 2008). E.E.O.C. v. Ceridian is distingu ishable from the presen t case because the procedural posture of that case meant that the sought ta x returns were from non-parties. In the present cas e, Plaintiffs’ tax re turns are re levant to the par ties’ c laims and defences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). And Plaintiffs have not proffered othe r means of satisfying Defendants’ interest in obtaining relevant discovery. Thus, this Court orde rs that, on or before October 30, 2009, Plaintiffs shall provide complete, non-privileged inform ation responsive to this request by producing all state and federal tax returns with all schedules and attachments, from tax year 2004 forward, including the 2008 tax year if they have been filed. Plainti ffs can redact portions of the tax returns that identify nonparties or pertain only to non-parties. Moreover, the Protective Order [Docket No. 83] is should assuage Plaintiffs of any other privacy concerns.
It appears that Defendants requested from all Plaintiffs “[a]ll records and documents that refer or relate to your earnings and income after the termination of your employment relationship with any of the Defendants.” Defendants conte nd that P laintiffs have not produced docum ents
12

relating unemployment and social security benefits, W-2’s or 1099 forms. This Court concludes that the request for unemployment benefits is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from som e other source that is m ore convenient, less burdensom e, or less expensive,” namely the parties’ tax return s. This Court concludes that social secu rity and unemploym ent benefits are also irrelevant. See G aworski v. ITT Commercial Finan ce Corp. , 17 F.3d 1104, 1112 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Beshears v. Asbill, 930 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.1991). Thus, this Court denies Defendants’ motion as it pertains to unemployment and social security benefits. But, this Court concludes that W-2’s and 1099 for ms are relevant; and this Court orders that, on or before October 30, 2009, Plaintiffs shall provide comple te, non-privileged info rmation responsive to this request by producing all state and federal tax returns w ith all schedules and attachm ents, from tax year 2004 forward, including the 2008 tax y ear if they have been filed, as well as W -2 and 1099 forms.
In addition, this Court orders as follows: A. Theresa Raskob
Defendants requested Plaintiff Theresa Ras kob produce “[ a]ll docum ents that refer or relate to your efforts to obtain employment from January 1, 2004, forward.” Defendants contend that they are entitled to Theresa Raskob’s medical records because her health bears on her ability to se ek a lternate em ployment and m itigate he r alleged da mages. (Def .’s Mem . 7-9, Sept. 9, 2009.) Thi s Court concludes that Defendants’ re quest is overbroad because it seeks irrelevant information of a highly personal nature. While a Plaintiff cannot claim e motional distress damages, “[i]f an em ployee suffers a ‘wilful loss of earnings,’ . . . the em ployer’s backpay liability is tolled.” Thurman v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. , 90 F.3d 1160, 1168-69 (6th Cir. 1996). Defendants are entitled to discovery that is relevant to the question whether Plaintiff
13

suffered a wilful loss of earnings. Plaintiffs seems to be willing to concede that Theresa Raskob’s

hospitalization periods c onstituted a “wilful loss of earnings,” (Pl.’s Mem . 7, Se pt. 16, 2009),

and Defendants can certainly pursue an adm ission or stipulation to that end. But, this Court

orders that, on or before October 30, 2009, in th e absence of agreem ent between the parties,

Plaintiff Theresa Rasko b shall disclose the m edical docum entation that pe rtains her periods of

hospitalization. This Court denies Defendants’ motion as to Theresa Raskob’s medical records in

all other respects.

Defendants also requested docum ents from Theresa Raskob pertaining to her former

residence because Defendants asse rt that Theresa Raskob is seeking damages for the loss of her

residence. (Def.’s Mem. 9, Se pt. 9, 2009.) Plaintiffs contend th at Theresa Raskob’s financial

situation and housing situation ar e irrelevant given that her cl aim is under the ADEA, which

limits damages to back pay, front pay, liquidated da mages, and fees/costs. (Pl.’s Mem . 10, Sept.

16, 2009.); see 29 U.S.C. § 626. This Court agrees. The only relevant issue is whether “plaintiff

. . . use[d] reasonable diligence in finding other suitable em ployment.” Newhouse, 110 F.3d at

641. Plaintiff Theresa Raskob’s loans, lenders, bank statements, credit reports, and credit scores

are irr elevant to this is sue. This Court deni es Defendants’ m otion as it pertains to Theresa

Raskob in all other respects.

B. Lee Walter

In their motion, Defendants requested “income statements” and “contracts” that show the

terms of Lee W alter’s post-term ination em ployment term s. (Def.’s Mem. 11, Sept. 9, 2009.)

This Court concludes that th is req uest as it p ertains to th e contract term s is ir relevant to th e

question of whether “ plaintiff . . . use[ d] reasonable dilig ence in f inding other suitable

employment.” Newhouse, 110 F.3d at 641. And “incom

e statements” is “unreasonably

14

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained f rom some other source that is m ore convenient, less burdensom e, or less expensive,” nam ely L ee W alter’s tax returns. Therefore, This Court denies Defendants’ motion as it pertains to Lee Walter.
C. Narendra Garg Defendants requested P laintiff Narendra Garg produce “[a]ll docum ents th at ref er or
relate to Narendra K. Garg Agency, Inc., or ot her business in which you ha ve or previously had an ownership interest during the period of 2003 to the present” and “[a]ll documents that refer or relate in any way to your rela tionship with Am erican Fam ily Insurance . . . .” This Court concludes that this request is overly broad in that it seeks evidence that is irrelevant to any claims or defences and is “unreasonabl y cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” namely Narendra Garg’s tax returns. This Court orders that, on or befo re October 30, 2009, Plaintiff Narendra Garg shall provide complete, non-privileged inf ormation responsive to these requests by producing: (1) all individual state and federal tax returns with all schedules and attachments, from tax year 2004 forward, and (2) all s tate and f ederal tax re turns, with all sc hedules and attachments, related to Narendra K . Garg Agency, Inc., and any othe r business Narendra Garg has an ownership interest, from tax year 2004 forward. This Cour t denies Defendants’ m otion as it pertains to Narendra Garg in all other respects.
D. David Olson Defendants requested that this Court order David Olson to produce in native format the
Excel spreadsheet containing an analysis that he previously produced to Defe ndants and provided to the EEOC. (Def.’s Mem. 13-14, Sept . 9, 2009.) This Court denies Defendants’ motion as “unreasonably cum ulative or duplicative, or can be obtai ned from some other source
15

that is m ore convenient, less burdensom e, or le ss expensive.” Defendants already have in their possession a printed version of the spreadsheet. This Court denies Defendants’ motion as it pertains to David Olson.
E. Paul Calcagno Defendants claim that Paul Calcagno has fa iled to produce docum ents relating to his
pension benefits and his tax returns. This Cour t concludes Defendants’ request is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained f rom some other source that is m ore convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” namely Paul Calcagno’s tax returns. This Court orders that, on or before October 30, 2009, Plaintiff Paul Ca lcagno shall provide co mplete, non-privileged information responsive to Defendants’ requests by producing all individual state and federal tax returns, with all schedules and attachm ents, from tax year 2004 forward. This Court denies Defendants’ motion as it pertains to Paul Calcagno in all other respects.
F. Richard Kerhwald Defendants claim that Paul Calcagn o has failed to produce docum ents relating to his self
employment as a “Day Trader. ” T his Court concludes D efendants re quest is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained f rom some other source that is m ore convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” nam ely Richard Kerhwald’s tax returns. This Court o rders that, on or before October 30, 2009, Plaintiff Richard Kerhwald shall provide complete, nonprivileged information responsive to Defendants’ requests by producing a ll individual state and federal tax returns, with all s chedules and attachments, from tax year 2004 forward. This Court denies Defendants’ motion as it pertains to Richard Kerhwald in all other respects.
16

G. Michael McDaniel Defendants claim that Michael M cDaniel has failed to produce docum ents relating to his
business, MC3, Inc./Graystone Currency and efforts to mitigate his claimed lost income. (Def.’s Mem. 18, Sept. 9, 2009.) This Court concludes that Defendants’ requests are overbroad. This Court orders that, on or before October 30, 2009, Plaintiff Michael McDaniel shall provide complete, non-privileged inform ation responsiv e to these requests by producing: (1) all individual state and federal tax returns with all schedules and attachments, from tax year 2004 forward; (2) all state and federal tax returns, with all schedules and attachments, related to MC3, Inc./Graystone Currency and any other business Michael McDaniel has an ownership interest, from tax year 2004 forward; (3) all docum ents that refer or relate to his efforts to obtain employment from January 1, 2004, forward. Th is Court denies Defendants’ motion with respects to Michael McDaniel in all other respects.
III. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES/SANCTIONS Both parties f iled m otions to com pel and re quested atto rney fees and sanctions. Rule 26(a)(5)(C) provides that “[i]f the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court . . . may, after giving an opportun ity to be heard, apportion the reas onable expenses for the m otion.” (Emphasis added.) In the present circumstances, attorney fees or sanctions are unwarranted.
17

IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the record, m emoranda, and oral argum ents of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to C ompel [Docket No. 171] is GRANTED IN P ART and DENIED IN PART as provided herein. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Co mpel [Docket No. 168] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as provided herein.

Dated: 10/19/09 United

s/ Arthur J. Boylan Arthur J. Boylan
States Magistrate Judge

18

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

JAMES PETERSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.
SEAGATE US LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 07-2502 (MJD/AJB) ORDER

This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 137].1 A hearing was held on March 5, 2009, in the United States Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101. Beth Bertleson, Esq., Dorene R. Sarnoski, Esq., and Dan B. Kohrman, Esq., represented Plaintiffs. Susan K. Kitzke, Esq., Michael McGuire, Esq., Kate Mrkonich Wilson, Esq., and Marko J. Mrkonich, Esq., represented Defendants.
Based upon the record, memoranda, and oral arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery [Docket No. 137] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as provided herein.

1 Plaintiffs’ corresponding motions to extend time for opt-ins to join this case and for monthly case management conferences under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 were resolved at the hearing. Plaintiffs’ counsel notified the Court on March 31, 2009, that discussions are ongoing with Defendants as to an agreeable amended deadline for plaintiffs to opt-in to this case (subject to the Court’s approval).
1

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 2 of 13

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

The general scope of discovery is defined by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant

to any party’s claim or defense-including the existence, description, nature,

custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and

the

identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For

good

cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject

matter

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at

the trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible

evidence.

“[D]iscovery is not limited to issues raised in the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to

help define and clarify the issues.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

(1978)(citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 500-501 (1947)). “Nor is discovery limited to

the merits of a case, for a variety of fact-oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not

related to the merits.” Id. Courts have treated discovery requests in employment cases liberally.

Lyoch v. Anheuser-Busch Co., 164 F.R.D. 62, 65 (E.D. Mo. 1995)(citing Finch v. Hercules, Inc.,

149 F.R.D. 60, 62 (D. Del. 1993)). “[T]he necessity for liberal discovery to clarify the complex

issues encountered in litigation seeking to redress employment discrimination has been widely

recognized.” Id. (citing Marshall v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co., 68 F.R.D. 287, 295 (D. Del.

1975)). In such cases, the plaintiff must be given access to information that will assist the

plaintiff in establishing the existence of the alleged discrimination. Id. (citations omitted). Thus,

the scope of discovery must go beyond the specifics of the plaintiff’s claims. Id.

Nevertheless, “discovery, like all matters of procedure has ultimate and necessary

boundaries.” Oppenheimer, 437 U.S. at 352. Those boundaries concerning the frequency and/or

extent of discovery otherwise allowed by the federal rules are set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 3 of 13
26(b)(2)(C). “Courts too have imposed restrictions on discovery related to employment discrimination as to time period,...the employing facility or work unit of the plaintiff,...the job category to which the plaintiff belongs,...the type of action by which the plaintiff was aggrieved such as hiring, promotion, discharge,...and the type of discrimination alleged, such as race, age, or sex.” Lyoch, 164 F.R.D. at 65 (citing Young v. Lukens Steel Co., 1994 WL 45156, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 1994)). Remaining mindful of this standard and its limitations, the Court now addresses Plaintiffs’ motion.
ANALYSIS I. Plaintiffs’ Document Request Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 26
In Carmen v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 114 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 1997), the Circuit addressed the issue of the proper geographic scope of employment discrimination discovery. In Carmen, the Defendant laid off Plaintiff as part of a reduction in force of its management staff. Id. at 791. Plaintiff sued Defendant under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Id. A discovery dispute arose between the parties, and Plaintiff filed a motion to compel with the district court. Id. The district court granted, in relevant part, Plaintiff’s request for information regarding Defendant’s past lay-offs, or past reductions in force, but limited the geographic scope of the request to the McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company, the component company of McDonnell Douglas Corporation where Plaintiff worked. Id. at 792. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Plaintiff’s request to the division in which he worked. Id. The court reasoned that “[c]ompany-wide statistics are usually not helpful in establishing pretext in an employment-discrimination case, because those who make employment decisions vary across divisions.” Id. The court found that Plaintiff had not
3

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 4 of 13
shown a particularized need for regional or nation company-wide information. Id. Here, this case also involves claims of age discrimination. See Compl. [Docket No. 1].
Plaintiffs seek to compel discovery from all the Seagate facilities that were involved in the July 2004 terminations irrespective of whether or not those facilities involve Plaintiffs who have opted-in to this case. See Pls.’ Mem. 11-25 [Docket No. 142]. Defendants argue that these requests are overbroad, burdensome, and seek irrelevant information, inter alia. Defendants object to producing nationwide discovery in this case as the employment decisions were made on a local, as opposed to a national level, and discovery should therefore be limited to the local employing units of each opt-in plaintiff. See Defs.’ Mem. 18 [Docket No. 145]; see, e.g. Earley v. Champion Int’l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1084 (11th Cir. 1990). The Court, however, overrules Defendants objections for three reasons. First, this Court is not bound by the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit.2 Second, while it may be true that employment decisions were made by management at local Seagate facilities, Plaintiffs have shown a particularized need for “nationwide” information as Defendants have specifically stated that all of the facilities mentioned below either conducted workforce reductions and/or offered early retirement to employees in 2004. See Defs.’ Answer to Int. No. 1 (Pls.’ Mem. 27-28); see also Exs. 1, 7-8 [Docket No. 88]. Finally, the Court finds said discovery to be relevant and/or appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), and not overbroad or unduly burdensome per Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Defendants shall provide complete, non-privileged information responsive to these requests from the
2 The Court would note that not all “nationwide” discovery was denied in the Earley case. See 907 F.2d at 1084, n.6.
4

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 5 of 13
following facilities: Bloomington (Normandale), Minnesota; Shakopee, Minnesota; Fremont, California; Milpitas, California; Scotts Valley, California; San Jose, California; Longmont, Colorado; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Furthermore, Document Requests Nos. 15, 19, and 21 shall be limited to responsive information from January 1, 2003, until January 1, 2008. II. Plaintiffs’ Document Request Nos. 16-17
Document Request Nos. 16-17 seek information reflecting company policies on the issues of re-deployment and re-hiring in connection with the 2004 terminations from the Seagate facilities mentioned above. See Pls.’ Mem. 18-19. Defendants raise the same objections to Document Request Nos. 16-17 as they raised to Document Request Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 26. Defendants also indicate that at this time they are unaware of any responsive, non-privileged documents, but discovery is ongoing. The Court, however, overrules Defendants’ objections. Plaintiffs are entitled to “nationwide” discovery, therefore, Defendants shall provide complete, non-privileged information responsive to these requests from the facilities identified above should they become aware of such documents. III. Plaintiffs’ Document Request No. 22
Plaintiffs’ Document Request No. 22 seeks work performance-related information for all Seagate employees working in any of their U.S. facilities as of June 1, 2004. Id. at 22. More specifically, Plaintiffs seek performance appraisals, and all written performance discussions, written warnings, and/or performance improvement plans for the years 2000 to the present. Id. Defendants assert the same objections previously mentioned, and further contend that the requested performance appraisals, writing warnings, etc. relating to individuals (other than the
5

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 6 of 13
opt-in Plaintiffs) for the requested eight year time period is “not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information, can have no relevance to this matter, and is too burdensome to be produced.” Id. Defendants do, however, agree to produce personnel records relating to all Plaintiffs who opt-in to the collective class, as well as the 2002 and 2003 performance ratings and written performance improvement plans for any individuals to whom opt-in Plaintiffs were compared when identifying or selecting a particular Plaintiff for participation in the Summer 2004 RIF (“Reduction In Force”). Id.
The Court finds said discovery to be relevant and/or appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” as set forth in Rule 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs allege a pattern or practice of age discrimination and should be allowed to compare and contrast employees fired and retained. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 793 (1973); Flanagan v. Travelers Ins. Co., 111 F.R.D. 42, 45 (W.D.N.Y. 1968)(“Comparative information is necessary to afford plaintiff a fair opportunity to develop her case and may be relevant to establish the pretextual nature of defendant’s conduct.”). “In disparate-impact cases, statistical patterns of disparities are typically the entire basis of the plaintiffs’ claims.” MacDissi v. Valmont Indus., Inc., 856 F.2d 1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 1988). One potential avenue to pursue statistical analysis or circumstantial proof of a pattern or practice of age discrimination would be through a comparison of performance evaluations of older and younger employees. See Holley v. Sanyo Mfg., Inc., 771 F.2d 1161, 1165-66 (8th Cir. 1985)(in cases involving ADEA claims, plaintiff “must come forward with additional...evidence that age was a factor...such a showing could be made...by statistical evidence (as, for example, where a pattern of forced early retirement or failure to promote older employees can be shown) or circumstantial evidence (such
6

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 7 of 13
as a demonstration of a preference for younger employees in the business organization).”). Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs request for performance-related information for all Seagate employees over an eight-year time frame is extremely burdensome. Thus, Defendants shall provide complete, non-privileged information responsive to this request from the facilities identified above, and such production shall be limited to the personnel records relating to all Plaintiffs who opt-in to the collective class in this matter, as well as all performance ratings, written performance discussions, written warnings, and/or written performance improvement plans for the years 2002 through 2005 for any individuals to whom opt-in members of the collective class were compared when identifying or selecting a particular Plaintiff for participation in the Summer 2004 RIF. IV. Plaintiffs’ Document Request No. 23/General Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9
In general, Plaintiffs’ Document Request No. 23 and General Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9 seek information relating to Defendants’ alleged hiring, transferring, and/or reassigning younger, less qualified individuals into open positions rather than selecting more qualified, older individuals for such positions.3 See Pls.’ Mem. 23, 30, 34. Notwithstanding Defendants’ repeated objections to the relevancy and burden created by these requests, Defendants argue that “the only employment decision at issue in this litigation is Seagate’s decision to terminate each Plaintiff’s employment in the RIF (or in the case of the SIRP participant, his decision to separate employment with Seagate in connection with that voluntary retirement program).” See Defs.’s
3 The Court would note that Plaintiffs have withdrawn Document Request No. 23 to the extent that it seeks documents concerning any individuals who applied for openings with Defendants, interview notes for said individuals, and other letters to those individuals offered the positions.
7

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 8 of 13
Mem. 28. The Court, however, overrules said objections4 and holds that Plaintiffs are entitled to
“nationwide” discovery for the aforementioned Seagate facilities. This case is not just an age discrimination case based solely on Defendants’ termination practices and policies; Plaintiffs’ Complaint specifically alleges that Seagate engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination with termination, selection process, opportunities for open positions, and hiring. See Compl. 2, 6-7 [Docket No. 1]. Thus, Defendants shall provide complete, non-privileged information responsive to these requests. V. Plaintiffs’ Document Request No. 27
Document Request No. 27 seeks “...all versions (whether draft or final) of the ‘Reorganization Employee Selection Justification’ form or any other ‘justifications’ that Seagate wrote for each Plaintiff and any other employee terminated in the July 2004 Terminations. For each draft version of such documents, [Defendants shall] provide all metadata for each document.” See Pls.’ Mem. 25. Defendants objected to this request as “vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. Defendants also argued that said request sought “confidential information relating to non-party employees with no possible relevance to this matter.” Id. Without waiving their objections, Defendants did agree to produce non-privileged documents
4 These requests are also distinguishable from the request in Wagoner v. Pfizer, Inc., 2008 WL 821952 (D. Kan. 2008) that is cited by Defendants which sought detailed information on all persons hired by Pfizer since January 1, 2004. Unlike the Wagoner case, Plaintiffs here are in fact pursuing a traditional “pattern and/or practice” class action theory. Contra id. at *5. Furthermore, the Court finds in this case that Plaintiffs have sufficiently met their burden of showing that information related to Defendants’ hiring and promotion practices are relevant to their discrimination claims. Contra id.
8

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 9 of 13
relating to the selection of any employee for the Summer 2004 RIF, including any “Reorganization Employee Section Justification,” relating to all opt-in Plaintiffs, as well as any such documents reflecting other reduction decisions made by the same decision-makers who made the decisions that impacted Plaintiffs. Id. at 25-26.
The Court overrules Defendants objections and finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to “nationwide” discovery regarding Defendants’ justifications for allegedly firing older employees for purposes of comparative analysis. See Holly, 771 F.2d at 1165-66. Said discovery is relevant to the claims and defenses of this case, and is not overbroad or unduly burdensome. Defendants shall provide complete, non-privileged information responsive to this request from the facilities identified above. Furthermore, Defendants must produce all versions of the documents requested herein for all individuals terminated or selected for early retirement regardless of whether or not they chose to opt-in to this lawsuit. VI. Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 1
Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 1 asks Defendants to identity chain-of-command information for each Seagate facility that was involved in the July 2004 terminations. See Pls.’ Mem. 27. Defendants have only agreed to provide the chain-of-command for all opt-in Plaintiffs up to at least the Vice President level. Id. The Court, however, finds this information to be relevant and orders that Defendants identify the chain-of-command starting at the lowest level supervisor(s) for each workgroup, department, and/or division up to the highest level individual(s) as of June 1, 2004, and August 1, 2004, through December 31, 2005, for all the facilities mentioned above that were involved in the 2004 RIF/SIRP. VII. Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 2
9

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 10 of 13
Interrogatory No. 2 requests Defendants to identify all of their employees, at each location identified in Interrogatory No. 1, as of January 1, 2003, as well as background information pertaining to said employees (name, address, phone number, age as of June 1, 2004, etc.). Id. at 28-29. Defendants are not required to answer this request as the Court finds this request to be overbroad and unduly burdensome per Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Plaintiffs, however, shall be allowed to amend this request to narrow the scope of the answers they seek from Defendants as the Court finds said inquiry to be relevant to Plaintiffs’ alleged pattern or practice of age discrimination claims. VIII. Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 5
Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 5 seeks information concerning who the decisionmakers were and when the decisions were made about the 2004 RIF/SIRP. Id. The Court overrules Defendants objections at this time as they have agreed to supplement their answer to this request as the investigation for responsive disclosures is ongoing. Id.; see also Defs.’ Mem. 30. IX. Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 6
General Interrogatory No. 6 asks Defendants to provide information regarding yearly salary, bonus amounts paid per year, stock options per year, benefits and amount of each per year, and all other monetary disbursements per year for each Plaintiff for the years January 1, 2000, until the last day of employment. See Pls.’ Mem. 32. As both Plaintiffs and Defendants note, Defendants do not maintain complete information internally related to payroll, bonuses,
10

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 11 of 13
stock options, etc. See Giroux Decl. ¶ 8;5 Defs.’ Resp. 4; Roberts Decl. ¶ 2-3 [Docket No. 154]. Defendants have agreed to produce personnel and compensation records relating to all opt-in Plaintiffs. See Pls.’ Mem. 32. The Court finds Defendants agreed-to disclosures to be sufficient in responding to this request. X. Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 8
Interrogatory No. 8 seeks the name and age of each employee listed on several charts provided by Defendants in response to other discovery requests by Plaintiffs, whether said employees were terminated or not terminated in July 2004, and whether these individuals were re-hired as an employee or performed work for Seagate at any time from July 2004 to the present. Id. Defendants reiterated earlier objections based on relevance and burden, and also argued that this interrogatory sought information relating to the validity of release agreements signed by Plaintiffs-an issue which was already adjudicated by the Court. Id.
The Court, however, finds that Defendants’ objections lack merit and orders that Defendants produce complete, non-privileged answers responsive to this request as the information sought by this interrogatory request is relevant and/or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs are entitled to confirmation that the information provided by Defendants as to the individuals allegedly terminated and not terminated in the RIF/SIRP is accurate for purposes of statistical analysis to establish the existence of a pattern or practice of discrimination. See McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 804-05 (“Statistical data is relevant to establishing an employer’s pattern of conduct and may facilitate a
5 The Court received Plaintiff’s Declaration of Ramona Giroux at the March 5th hearing, and thereafter allowed Defendants an opportunity to respond to said declaration. See Defs.’ Resp. [Docket No. 155].
11

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 12 of 13
determination as to whether the employer has discriminated against a particular individual as well as an entire class.”); see also supra at p. 6-7. The Court also agrees with Plaintiffs’ argument that while the Special Incentive Retirement Plan (“SIRP”) releases were found invalid as a matter of law there was no definitive ruling made on the validity of the charts regarding SIRP eligible and ineligible employees. See Order [Docket No. 84]. Therefore, the names, ages, and job titles of--those individuals on the charts (referenced by Interrogatory No. 8) in the order in which they appear on the charts; the individuals listed on said charts as being terminated but were not terminated; and any individuals who were terminated in the July 2004 terminations, but subsequently rehired as an employee or who performed work for Defendants at any time from July 2004 to the present--shall be identified by Defendants and disclosed to Plaintiffs. XI. Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 10
Finally, Plaintiffs’ General Interrogatory No. 10 asks Defendants to identify “each employee who had primary responsibility for compliance with the ADEA, the OWBPA, and for EEOC Compliance and/or creation of any adverse impact report in connection with the July 2004 Terminations.” Id. Notwithstanding their boilerplate objections, Defendants argue that all managerial and human resource personnel known to have played any role in the selection or review of any Plaintiff for separation in connection with the summer 2004 RIF were identified in their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures almost a year ago. See Defs.’ Mem. 31. For that reason, Defendants refuse to answer Interrogatory No. 10, asserting that it is duplicative to and can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome source-the Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. Nonetheless, Defendants’ answer to this request states in general terms that “all managers involved in selecting employees for participation in the July 2004 and August 2004 involuntary
12

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 157 Filed 03/31/09 Page 13 of 13
reductions in force were responsible for ensuring that the selections made were based onlegitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons and did not discriminate against any employee on any unlawful basis, including age[, and] Human Resources professionals reviewed selection decisions and were also available to assist as requested...” See Pls.’ Mem. 35.
The Court overrules Defendants’ objections and orders that Defendants provide the names of the specific individuals who were responsible for compliance with the ADEA, the OWPBA, and for EEOC Compliance and/or creation of any adverse impact report in connection with the July 2004 terminations. Plaintiffs are entitled to this information because it directly relates to Defendants’ defenses to the alleged discrimination. This information is also useful in identifying the names of those managerial staff responsible for the RIF/SIRP for purposes of conducting future discovery through depositions.

Dated: March 31, 2009

s/ Arthur J. Boylan Arthur J. Boylan United States Magistrate Judge

13

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 132 Filed 12/18/08 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.

Case No.: No. 07-CV-2502 (MJD/AJB)

Seagate US LLC, et al.,

Defenda

nts.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J.

Boylan, on Plaintiffs’ informal motion to amend the “Class Notice”. A telephone

conference was held on the issue on December 18, 2008.

Based upon the record, letter briefing, and oral arguments of counsel, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ informal motion to amend the “Class

Notice” is GRANTED. The Court-approved modifications to the “Class Notice”

are stated in the attached “Exhibit A” below.

Dated: __December 18, 2008____

By: s/ Arthur J. Boylan Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan United States District Court

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 132 Filed 12/18/08 Page 2 of 6

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Court James Peterson, David Olson, Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, and Ronald Wrase, for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,

File No. 07-2502 (MJD/AJB)

Plaintiffs,

Notice of Pending Action and Eligibility to Participate

v.

Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC

Defenda

nts.

2

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 132 Filed 12/18/08 Page 3 of 6
TO: RE: A pending age discrimination lawsuit against Seagate US LLC and others
(collectively “Seagate”) and your eligibility to participate in it. DATE: _______________
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a lawsuit in which you may be eligible to participate, to advise you of how your rights may be affected by this lawsuit, and to instruct you on the procedure for participating in this lawsuit if you wish to.
Twenty persons who were formerly employed at Seagate’s locations in Bloomington, Minnesota and Shakopee, Minnesota are jointly pursing an age discrimination lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Seagate. The name of this lawsuit is James Peterson, et. al. v. Seagate US LLC, et. al. The case number is 07-2502 (MJD/AJB). (The full name of the case appears on the first page of this document.).
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit allege that they were involuntarily terminated or selected for retirement from their employment in 2004 by Seagate because of their ages as part of a group termination. Plaintiffs allege that Seagate engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination, and that the group terminations in 2004 disparately impacted older workers. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
3

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 132 Filed 12/18/08 Page 4 of 6
Seagate denies the allegations in this lawsuit, denies that it unlawfully discriminated against any of the plaintiffs, denies that it has engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination, and denies that the terminations in 2004 disparately impacted older workers.
The judge presiding over this case decided on May 28, 2008 that those Plaintiffs who signed releases in return for certain benefits as part of the 2004 reduction in force could proceed with their age discrimination suits under the ADEA. The judge’s Order dealt with the invalidity of the releases. This Order can be viewed at the following website: www.bertelsonlaw.com.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek relief on behalf of themselves and also on behalf of other employees who are similarly situated. If this notice is addressed to you, you may be eligible to participate in this lawsuit, if you wish. To do so, you must file with the Court a signed “Consent to Join” form no later than 60 days from the date of this mailing.
“Consent to Join” forms may be obtained from the following attorneys who presently represent the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit:
Dan Kohrman and Laurie McCann, of AARP Foundation Litigation, 601 E Street NW, Room A4-240, Washington DC 200049, Telephone: 1-866-955-6299.
Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, of Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., 402 Union Plaza, 333 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Telephone: (612) 278-9832; and
4

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 132 Filed 12/18/08 Page 5 of 6
Dorene R. Sarnoski, of Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office, 402 Union Plaza, 333 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Telephone: (612) 3590050;
The following attorneys represent the Defendant Seagate: Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson, and Susan K. Fitzke, of Littler Mendelson, 1300 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Telephone: (612) 630-1000.
If you file a “Consent to Join” form, your continued right to participate in this lawsuit will depend on later decisions by the Minnesota District Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Likewise, if you file a “Consent to Join” form and are not dismissed from the lawsuit or barred from participating, you will be bound by the judgment of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you choose to join this lawsuit, you may be required to provide information, sit for a deposition, and testify in Court at trial.
If you choose not to join this lawsuit, you will not be affected by the judgment, favorable or unfavorable. If you choose not to join this lawsuit, you may elect to pursue relief on your own.
This Notice is only for the purpose of advising persons who may be eligible about the right they may have to participate in this lawsuit and has no other purpose.
5

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 132 Filed 12/18/08 Page 6 of 6

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE FOR INFORMAITON. QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS NAMED ABOVE, OR TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL ATTORNEY.
THIS NOTICE AND ITS CONTENTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RULING DESCRIBED ABOVE (PERTAINING TO THE INVALIDITY OF RELEASES), THE COURT HAS TAKEN NO POSITION IN THIS CASE REGARDING THE MERITS OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS OR DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSES.

DATED:__________, 2008 Judge

_____________ ____________ The Honorable Michael Davis of United States District Court

6

 
 CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al.,
v. Seagate US LLC, et al.,

Civil No. 07-2502 MJD/AJB

Plaintiffs, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON SIRP RELEASES AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON CALCAGNO CLAIMS

This matter is before the Court, Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the invalidity of 2004 SIRP releases [Docket No. 206], and on defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing claims asserted by Paul Calcagno [Docket No. 220]. The case has been referred to the magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Hearing was held on July 1, 2010, at the U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. Plaintiffs were represented at the hearing by Dorene R. Sarnoski, Esq., and Beth E. Bertelson, Esq. Defendants were represented by Marko J. Mrkonich, Esq., and Susan K. Fitzke, Esq.
Based upon the file and documents contained therein, including memorandums, affidavits, and exhibits, and in consideration of arguments presented at hearing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of 2004 SIRP Releases be granted [Docket No. 206]; and
2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno be denied [Docket No. 220].

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 2 of 18

Dated: December 28, 2010

s/ Arthur J. Boylan Arthur J. Boylan United States Chief Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), any party may object to this Report and Recommendation by filing with the Clerk of Court, and by serving upon all parties, written objections which specifically identify the portions of the Report to which objections are made and the bases for each objection. This Report and Recommendation does not constitute an order or judgment from the District Court and it is therefore not directly appealable to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Written objections must be filed with the Court before January 12, 2011.
Unless the parties stipulate that the District Court is not required by 28 U.S.C. § 636 to review a transcript of the hearing in order to resolve all objections made to this Report and Recommendation, the party making the objections shall timely order and file a complete transcript of the hearing within ten days of receipt of the Report.

MEMORANDUM Procedural Background and Claims
Defendant in this matter, Seagate US LLC, et al.1 (Seagate) is a manufacturer of computer hard drives and data storage solutions. Plaintiffs are former Seagate employees who either retired from the company pursuant to a Special Incentive Retirement Plan (SIRP) or were terminated in connection with a Reduction in Force (RIF) plan. In each instance the affected employee was offered a severance payment in exchange for execution of a release and waiver of possible employment claims against Seagate. Both of these employee reduction plans were
1 The presently existing Seagate entities that have been named as defendants are identified as Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, and Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. Defendants will hereafter be referenced in the singular.
2

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 3 of 18
implemented in 2004. The motions presently before the court relate to SIRP employee claims only.
Plaintiffs commenced this action by complaint filed in May 2007 in which it is alleged that plaintiffs suffered damages as a consequence of Seagate’s failure to comply with provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Plaintiffs are seeking to prosecute the case as a collective, opt-in action, and have requested declaratory relief with respect to the enforceability of releases under the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA), 29 U.S.C. § 626(f), and further requesting injunctive relief and monetary damages.
In June 2007, Seagate moved to dismiss nineteen specified plaintiffs from the action,2 based primarily upon the releases and waivers of claims executed by the employees, as well as the failure of each of them to exhaust EEOC administrative remedies. The district court denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action, concluding that the complaint stated sufficient allegations that the releases are not valid under the OWBPA, and under the circumstances in this case, it is not required that each individual member of a complaining class have filed an administrative charge.3 The district court declined a request by defendant for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss.4
Plaintiffs thereafter moved for partial summary judgment on the claim that
2 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 3]. 3 Mem. Opinion and Order dated November 20, 2007 [Docket No. 46]. 4 Order dated December 3, 2007 [Docket No. 49].
3

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 4 of 18
releases were invalid as a matter of law5 because they did not meet strict requirements of the OWBPA. The motion was granted with respect to releases offered to plaintiffs who were terminated pursuant to the 2004 RIF, and the motion was denied with respect to a release executed by plaintiff Paul Calcagno in connection with the 2004 SIRP.6 Specifically, and as pertains to the present motion, the district court determined that the then-existing record did not permit a finding that the Calcagno release violated the OWBPA on grounds that the plaintiff had not been provided job titles and ages of employees who were eligible and ineligible for the SIRP at designated work facilities. Defendant’s motion to certify the November 20, 2007, and May 28, 2008, Order for Interlocutory Appeal to the Eighth Circuit7 was denied.8 Plaintiffs were given authorization to provide nation-wide notice of the lawsuit to potential class members on October 23, 2008,9 but unconditional class certification has not been granted to date.
Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on the declaratory judgment action relating to the validity of releases executed by SIRP employees. Plaintiffs contend that the record is now sufficiently established to support the determination that the SIRP-terminated employees were not provided accurate lists of other Seagate employees in United States facilities who were eligible or not eligible to participate in the plan. Plaintiffs further argue that SIRP employees were not provided the OWBPA mandated 45 days in which to consider the plan
5 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: Invalidity of Releases [Docket No. 50].
6 Mem. Opinion and Order dated May 28, 2008 [Docket No. 84]. 7 [Docket No. 103]. 8 Mem. and Order dated August 24, 2008 [Docket No. 116]. 9 Mem. of Law and Order [Docket No. 120}
4

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 5 of 18
before deciding whether to participate. It is alleged that Seagate’s failure to strictly comply with such disclosure requirements invalidates the releases and claim waivers as a matter of law. Defendant on the other hand, asserts that affected employees were indeed given the necessary 45 days to consider whether to execute a release, and defendant further insists that any errors in disclosures were not material and do not provide grounds for invalidating the releases. Defendant also contends that SIRP participants, with the exceptions of James Peterson and David Olson, are not proper parties in this case because they did not file EEOC charges and cannot piggyback onto the EEOC charges filed by Peterson and Olson to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeks dismissal of claims by individual plaintiff Paul Calcagno on grounds that he did not exhaust EEOC administrative remedies, and he cannot show constructive discharge or other adverse employment action as necessary to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. Standard of Review
Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) The moving party has the initial responsibility of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be decided. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). In its review of the facts the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Kneibert v. Thomson Newspapers, Michigan, Inc., 129 F.3d 444, 451 (8th Cir. 1997). When a motion for summary judgment has been made and supported by the pleadings and affidavits as provided in Rule 56(c), the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to proffer evidence demonstrating that a
5

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 6 of 18
trial is required because a disputed issue of material fact exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56 (1986). In satisfying this burden, however, the non-moving party must do more than simply establish doubt as to the material facts. The party opposing summary judgment may not “rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita, 106 S.Ct. at 1355, n.11, Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995), Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Evidence must be presented to defeat a properly supported summary judgment motion and a party may not rely upon conclusory allegations and unsupported assertions. Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77, 80 (8th Cir. 1990). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 106 S.Ct. at 1356 (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims by Paul Calcagno
Defendant Seagate moves for dismissal of claims by individual defendant Paul Calcagno on grounds that undisputed evidence establishes that he voluntarily resigned his employment and therefore, as a matter of law he cannot satisfy an element of a cause of action for age discrimination. Seagate contends that the prima facie case for an age discrimination case, as set forth in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), requires that plaintiff Calcagno show that (1) he is age forty or more; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified and able to meet the employer’s expectations at the time of the adverse action; and (4) he was replaced by a substantially younger person. Lewis v. St. Cloud State
6

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 7 of 18
Univ., 467 F.3d 1133, 1136 (8th Cir. 2006). Also, in the reduction in force context there must be evidence that age was a motivating factor in the action. Johnson v. Runyon, 137 F.3d 1081, 1082 (8th Cir. 1998) (no adverse employment action where employee voluntarily retired). The complete McDonnell Douglas test provides that upon plaintiff establishing a prima facie case, a defendant employer must thereafter carry the burden of producing evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action, which would then shift the burden back to the defendant to show that the proffered reason is a mere pretext for discrimination. Lewis at 1137. Defendant Seagate argues that Mr. Calcagno cannot meet the initial prima facie burden of showing adverse employment action because he resigned to take advantage of the benefits available under the SIRP plan, and he cannot prove constructive discharge where evidence does not show employer conduct that created a hostile or abusive work environment. Johnson v. Runyon, 137 F.3d at 1082.
Plaintiffs in opposition insist that the McDonnell Douglas test does not apply in the context of a class action in which a pattern-or-practice of age discrimination is alleged. Rather, it is asserted that the analytical framework adopted in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) is properly applied when a plaintiff has alleged age discrimination as being the employer’s “standard operating procedure.” Thompson v. Weyerhauser, 582 F.3d 1125, 1126 (10th Cir. 2009). The plaintiffs here emphasize that it is necessary for the court to weigh statistical evidence and evidence relating to individual claims in combination with one another. Craik v. Minnesota State University Bd., 731 F.2d 465, 471 (8th Cir. 1984).
In Craik the court noted that it was “squarely confront[ing] the necessity of
7

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 8 of 18
distinguishing the analysis required for broad-based class actions from that required for individual, non-class actions.” Id. at 471. The court went on to conclude that in the context of a Title VII class action, “[w]ith regard to both the individual and class claims, all the evidence was relevant and should [be] considered together. The statistical and other evidence is relevant to the individual claims because it ‘is often a telltale sign of purposeful discrimination.’” Id. (quoting Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. at 340 n.20). Defendant argues that Teamsters espouses a burden shifting framework that does not relieve the plaintiff of the ultimate burden of proving a adverse employment action resulting from discrimination, and in any event, Teamsters addressed evidentiary burdens in Title VII claims which may not apply in a ADEA case under the reasoning in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2343 (2009) (holding that the burden shifting framework applied in Title VII cases was based upon statutory language that was not present in the ADEA). However, the decision as to the evidentiary burden as presented in Craik v. Minnesota State University Bd., 731 F.2d at 471, did not relate merely to shifting the burdens of proof or persuasion, but rather, concerned the extent and nature of the evidence that is pertinent to proving claims in the class context. Consequently, evidence regarding the individual plaintiff’s circumstances are relevant to class-based claims and conversely, statistical and class oriented evidence may be relevant to individual claims. Id. at 472; see also Thompson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 582 F.3d 1125, 1131 (declining to apply Gross to pattern-or-practice burden shifting framework in ADEA case) and Clark v. Matthews Int’l Corp., __ F.3d __ (8th Cir. 2010).10 Determination as to whether plaintiffs, including Mr. Calcagno, have established a prima facie case is premature at best and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should
10 8th Cir. Ct. of App. File No. 10-1037, Opinion filed December 27, 2010, pp. 9-11. 8

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 9 of 18
be denied to the extent it relies upon failure to establish an element of the cause of action for
class-based age discrimination.
Also, with respect to defendant’s assertion that plaintiff Paul CALCAGNO’s
claims are barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by filing his own EEOC charges,
the court concludes that such failure to exhaust should not preclude Mr. Calcagno’s claims in
this instance. Specifically, defendant contends that Mr. Calcagno cannot piggyback onto EEOC
charges by co-defendants Peterson and Olson, especially since those co-defendant EEOC
charges did not allege adverse employment action in the nature of involuntary retirement or
constructive discharge in connection with the SIRP. See Ulvin v. Norwestern Nat’l Life Ins.
Co., 943 F.2d 862 (8th Cir. 1991). This matter was previously addressed by the court in its
Memorandum Order and Opinion dated November 20, 2007, wherein it was determined that:
“[t]he Peterson and Olson charges made reference to the July 2004 terminations, that Seagate retained younger, less qualified individuals for ongoing projects, and that Peterson and Olson were bringing charges on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated. In this case, similarly situated persons would be those individuals affected by the 2004 terminations. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Peterson and Olson charges were sufficient to put Seagate on notice of the class claims of age discrimination in the Complaint.”11 (Emphasis added).
Mem. Order and Opinion, pp. 8-9. Defendant Seagate is essentially asking the court to again reconsider the prior decision with regard to the claims of plaintiff Paul Calcagno,12 and the court
11 See Aff. of Susan Kluger, Ex. U and Ex. V (EEOC charging documents) [Docket No. 223].
12 Mem. Order and Opinion, pp. 8-9 [Docket No. 46]. The district court also denied a direct request for reconsideration in an Order dated December 3, 2007 [Docket No. 49], and denied defendant’s request for certification for an interlocutory appeal on the issues of exhaustion of EEOC administrative remedies and enforcement of a SIRP release signed by Paul
9

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 10 of 18
is not persuaded that there has been a change in the law that would compel reconsideration or modification of prior court rulings. Defendant’s motion to dismiss claims asserted by Paul Calcagno should be denied. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to SIRP Releases
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on a claim for declaratory relief whereby releases and waivers of possible employment claims executed by plaintiffs in connection with a SIRP plan would be ruled invalid. Plaintiffs previously sought to obtain this determination by way of motion for summary judgment filed in December 2007. The district court held that releases offered to plaintiffs terminated pursuant to the 2004 RIF were invalid as a matter of law, but the invalidity finding did not extend to an employees covered by the SIRP because the record before the court at the time was insufficient to support such determination. Mem. Order and Opinion dated May 28, 2008. In any event, the court held that the OWBPA imposed “a ‘strict, unqualified statutory stricture on waivers’ and [the statute] incorporates no exceptions or qualifications.” Id. at 3 (quoting Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427 (1998). Therefore, “[s]ubstantial compliance is not adequate, and [t]he party asserting the validity of the waiver has the burden of proving that the waiver was knowing and voluntary. Id. at 3-4 (citations omitted).
In order to satisfy the “knowing and voluntary” requirement the conditions established at 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1) must be satisfied such that, at a minimum, the waiver: (1) is written in a manner calculated to be understood by the individual or by the average individual eligible to participate; (2) refers to rights or claims arising under the ADEA; (3) does not include
Calcagno, in an Order dated February 14, 2008 [Docket No. 80]. 10

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 11 of 18
a waiver of rights or claims that may arise following execution of the waiver; (4) is made in exchange for consideration over and above the value to which the individual is already entitled; (5) advises the individual in writing to consult with an attorney before executing; (6) provides at least 21 days to consider the agreement, or 45 days in the context of a reduction in force; (7) allows the individual at least seven days to revoke the waiver agreement; and (8) if in connection with an exit incentive or job termination program offered to a group or class of employees, advises the individual in writing, in a manner calculated to be understood by the individual or by the average individual eligible to participate, as to any class, unit, or group of individuals covered by the program, along with eligibility factors and time limits, as well as job titles and ages of all persons eligible or selected for the program and the ages of persons in the same job classification or organizational unit who are not eligible or selected. 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1). Mem. Order and Opinion dated May 28, 2008, page 4. Furthermore, “[t]he absence of even one of the OWBPA’s requirements invalidates a waiver,” Id. at 5 (quoting Kruchowski v. Weyerhauser Co., 446 F.3d 1090, 1095 (10th Cir. 2006) and Butcher v. Gerber Prods. Co. 8 F. Supp. 2d 307, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)), and even a technically sufficient waiver must not have a misleading or misinforming effect. Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22(a)(3)). Plaintiffs contend that the waivers offered to SIRP employees are not enforceable because Seagate did not accurately inform terminated employees as all employees who were included, and not included, in the plan, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H), and that the SIRP employees were not given the required 45-day consideration period under 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(F)(ii).
Participant List Compliance. Plaintiffs contend that the releases and suit waivers executed by SIRP participants are invalid as matter of law because defendant Seagate
11

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 12 of 18
failed to comply with the strict OWBPA mandate that each participant be provided identities and other information regarding all persons who are eligible or are not eligible or selected as participants in the plan, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H). In support of this position plaintiffs offer several lists of employees which were obtained in discovery and appear to reveal discrepancies in numbers and identities of employees who were eligible or ineligible for workforce reduction plans.13 Neither plaintiffs nor defendant contend that a representation has been made that any employee list that has been produced in discovery is in fact an accurate list of employees disclosed for purposes of implementation of the SIRP plan as issue in this case. However, plaintiffs contend that the discrepancies serve as persuasive evidence that Seagate failed to comply with the strict requirements of the OWBPA, and releases signed by SIRP terminated employees should therefore be invalidated. Defendants on the other hand argue that their inability to produce a definitive disclosure list is explained and justified in light of the lapse of more than five years since the SIRP was offered to employees, and that an issue of material fact therefore exists and precludes summary judgment.
Considered separately, none of the various employee lists produced in discovery constitutes or reveals a distinct flaw in the SIRP participant disclosure scheme which establishes
13 Plaintiffs describe each compilation as follows: (1) a list of 7,156 individuals disclosed to SIRP terminated employees in 2004; (2) the “Tom Hall Roster” which identifies 7,530 individuals as U.S. workforce employees on May 24, 2004, on a list maintained by a Seagate executive; (3) a list of 7,464 individuals which is described as a May 1, 2004, U.S. snapshot of the U.S. workforce at the time, produced in response to amended interrogatory request # 2, seeking such a list; (4) a list of 7,557 individuals provided by Seagate as an amended list in response to the prior interrogatory #2 request; (5) a list of 30 individuals who were identified as persons who had received OWBPA SIRP disclosures, but had not been included in the previously disclosed amended interrogatory #2 workforce list; and (6) another supplemental answer to amended interrogatory #2.
12

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 13 of 18
as a matter of law that inaccurate information was conveyed to potential participants. However, plaintiffs have compared certain lists and have expressly designated more that 80 employees nation-wide who were either improperly included as SIRP employees or were improperly excluded as SIRP employees, thereby providing particularized factual evidence regarding defendant’s noncompliance with 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H).14 Specifically, plaintiffs identify nine individuals15 who were employed at a Seagate U.S. facility during the relevant time period who held the same job titles as employees on the SIRP eligible list, but were not included as OWBPA disclosures; plaintiffs next identify more than forty individuals16 who were named in OWBPA disclosures to SIRP employees, but had been previously terminated and were not actually employed by Seagate during the pertinent time period; and plaintiffs identify thirty individuals17 who were named as OWBPA disclosures but were not employed at U.S. facilities and were therefore improperly included among disclosures to SIRP employees. Plaintiffs argue that each of these inaccuracies in disclosure lists alone is sufficient to manifest a failure to strictly comply with requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(H) and is fatal to the release defense.
Defendant does not directly address the noncompliance claim regarding each of the referenced individuals or groups of individuals, but rather, contends that substantial compliance is sufficient and that 80 employees out of a population of over 7000 affected
14 Aff. of Andrea Ostopowich, Ex. 1, 4, 5, 16a, and 16b (CDs filed under seal). 15 Plaintiffs state that there were ten such employees identified in discovery responses, but only nine are named in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 16-17. 16 Mem. of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, pp. 17-19. 17 Id., pp. 19-20.
13

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 14 of 18
employees is not a material disclosure error. Defendant also argues that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by laches because no claims relating to SIRP agreements were brought for more than five years after SIRP employee separations and nearly six years after SIRP disclosures were made. Defendant’s contentions are unpersuasive under the circumstances in this case. As an initial matter the court finds that the defendant has not presented facts or argument to establish a fact issue as to plaintiffs’ representations regarding any single one of the above-discussed particularly named persons. Rather, defendant seemingly asks the court to arbitrarily set some benchmark number or percentage of employees, greater than roughly 1% of the affected workforce, and certainly greater than 80 individuals in this case, with respect to which the number of inaccurate disclosures and nondisclosures would become material. In light of the strict compliance requirements under Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427, and in particular, being especially mindful of the court’s prior decision on RIF waivers and the fact evidence put forth by plaintiffs, the court now concludes that defendant has not carried its burden of proving that the SIRP waivers were knowing and voluntary based upon adequate compliance with all the OWBPA requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1), and defendant has not presented evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a material fact issue as to sufficiency of SIRP disclosures. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment invalidating 2004 SIRP releases should be granted.
Laches. Defendant asserts the equitable doctrine of laches as a bar to plaintiffs’ effort to invalidate SIRP releases. Seagate contends that more than five years were allowed to pass between the time of employee separations under the plan in 2004, and the time that SIRP release invalidity claims in this matter were clearly asserted. It is argued that this amount of time
14

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 15 of 18
is unreasonable, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the defendant, and therefore laches should be applied in this instance. Defendant correctly acknowledges that application of the doctrine lies within the sound discretion of the court. Whitfield v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 820 F.2d 243, 244 (8th Cir. 1987). Seagate alleges that the prejudice from the delay lies in its inability to respond with respect to the specific individuals who plaintiffs assert as having been inaccurately included or excluded from the SIRP disclosures, and the inability to identify persons having the requisite knowledge.
The court stated in Sandobal v. Armour & Co., 429 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1970), that “[l]aches is a doctrine ordinarily applied in action of an equitable nature and is rarely, if ever, invoked as a bar to an action at law seeking damages for breach of contract. Furthermore, [ ] it is not applicable unless there has been harmful reliance by the other party.” Id. at 256. The present matter is an action for money damages and is a not a case in equity. Also, the complaint was served and filed in May 2007, and included allegations relating to the SIRP employees, which effectively advised the defendant as to the existence of potential issues now before the court and signaled that it might be prudent to locate and preserve SIRP related information, both for discovery by the plaintiff and perhaps as evidence favorable to the defense. Defendant can be credited with knowledge of SIRP claims within three years of the plan implementation, far sooner that the five-plus years represented in current argument. Under these circumstances the defendant has shown neither laxity on the part of plaintiffs in asserting claims, nor its own harmful reliance on delay or inaction by the plaintiffs. Id. The court concludes that application of laches is not appropriate in this case.
45-days Consideration Period. Plaintiff’s argue that SIRP participants did not
15

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 16 of 18
receive 45 days in which to ponder whether to accept the termination agreement as mandated by 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(F)(ii). Plaintiffs argue that a mere 18-day consideration period was allowed pursuant to SIRP notice letters which provided a window period for voluntary resignations between May 17, 2004, and June 4, 2004, after which time the employee would be ineligible for SIRP participation.18 Defendant contends that plaintiffs are incorrectly relying upon a SIRP election document that was sent to eligible employees along with other related documents to be reviewed by the employee, and that the actual separation and release agreements signed by employees expressly provided a consideration period of 45 days from the date the agreement document was provided.19 See Decl. of Susan Kugler, Ex. A-V.20 The interpretation of the SIRP Election document(s) that plaintiff advocates as establishing an inadequate consideration time states that additional materials are provided for review by the employee, including “[a] draft, sample Election to Participate in Special Incentive Retirement Plan and Release. This document is not in a final form and cannot be signed.” The document further states that “I acknowledge that I will be provided, on or about the date of my retirement, with final documentation for my execution confirming my participation in the SIRP and providing Seagate with a release of any and all claims which I might assert against the Company.”21
18 Docket No. 6, Ex. 22B, page 15. 19 Id., Ex. 20, page 3. 20 [Docket 223]. Ex. A-J are separate and individually executed SIRP Election proposal documents which plaintiffs rely upon as evidence of a insufficient 18-day consideration period. Ex. K-T are separate and individually executed elections to participate in the SIRP with release agreement. 21 Id., Ex. A-J.
16

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 17 of 18
Though not a model of clarity, the document entitled “SIRP Election” on its face anticipates that a subsequent termination agreement and release must be executed before the employee’s SIRP participation becomes binding, and the present document is primarily a means to provide employees an informed opportunity to later “confirm” such participation. The employee’s signing of the document simply does not contractually compel the individual to accept the terms and conditions of the SIRP, particularly with regard to the release requirement, and likewise, defendant Seagate is not clearly bound to accept participation. Moreover, SIRP participants were subsequently presented an “Election to Participate in Special Incentive Retirement Plan and Release Agreement”22 which clearly represents an operative contractual agreement, intended to be conditioned upon a release of claims, and containing an express provision whereby the employee was given at least 45 days in which to consider whether to accept termination pursuant to the SIRP. Seagate did not limit employees to a shorter agreement consideration period, and did not violate 29 U.S.C. § 626(f)(1)(F)(ii), by requiring them to preliminarily indicate their desire to make a SIRP election by June 4, 2004. To the extent that the initial SIRP election document arguably required some employees to reject participation with inadequate time for consideration, the election was clearly revocable and affected employees could simply execute the document and continue to consider participation in the SIRP. Of course, those employees who did not sign the document are not SIRP class members and did not execute a SIRP release. As defendants have contended, opt-in plaintiffs actually had far more than 45 days to make a decision on termination and releases. Plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration of SIRP release invalidity based upon violation of the statutory 45-day period for
22 Decl. of Susan Kugler, Ex. K-T. 17

CASE 0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB Document 311 Filed 12/28/10 Page 18 of 18 consideration mandate.
18

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

James Peterson, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v.
Seagate US LLC, et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Civil No. 07‐2502

Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________

Dan Kohrman, Laurie McCann and Thomas Osborne, AARP Foundation Litigation, Beth E. Bertelson and Andrea R. Ostapowich, Bertelson Law Offices, P.A., and Dorene R. Sarnoski, Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office for and on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Marko J. Mrkonich, Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson and Susan K. Fitzke, Littler Mendelson for and on behalf of Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court upon Defendants Seagate US LLC, Seagate

Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate

Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology US LLC, Seagate Software,

Inc. and Seagate Holdings, LLC’s (collectively referred to herein as “Seagate”)

Motion for Decertification, to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert and for Summary Judgment

on the Disparate Impact Claim.

1

Factual Background Based on financial projections in 2004, Seagate announced anticipated
reduced earnings due to weakened demand and adverse market characteristics. In response to these projections, Seagate’s executive council concluded the company needed to take cost‐reduction measures to address the revenue shortfall. (Fitzke Dec. [Doc. No. 33], Ex. 10 (Pope Dep. at 20‐21); Ex. 8 (Dexheimer Dep. at 23‐24); Ex. 12 (Watkins Dep. at 77‐78).) The executive council thereafter identified an overall cost‐reduction target, which was then relayed to Seagate’s Corporate Management Committee (“CMC”). (Id., Ex. 8 (Dexheimer Dep. at 24‐ 27).) The CMC determined that employee headcount needed to be reduced. The CMC members were given cost‐reduction targets, which they in turn brought to their organizations to determine the next steps. (Id., Ex. 7 (Davidson Dep. at 22).) The CMC issued broad guidelines as to how to achieve the cost‐reduction target, through the adoption of the Special Incentive Retirement Plan (“SIRP”) and dissemination of general guidelines regarding employee selection for a company‐ wide reduction in force (the “RIF”). (Id. at 21‐22; Def. Ex. 35 (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 22‐28, Ex. A).)
2

Plaintiffs are former employees of Seagate who were terminated either by participating in the SIRP or through the RIF. Plaintiffs were all over the age of forty at the time their employment was terminated, and have brought this collective action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: Count I, Age Discrimination under the ADEA (Disparate Treatment) Collective Action; Count II, Age Discrimination under the ADEA (Disparate Impact) Collective Action; Count III, Age Discrimination (Disparate Treatment) Individual Claims; and Count IV, Declaratory Relief that the Releases Are Invalid.
It is Plaintiffs’ position that the SIRP and the RIF had an adverse impact on employees over the age of forty. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that Seagate engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination through the SIRP and the RIF. In support, Plaintiffs have alleged that as a result of the guidelines created by the CMC, Seagate subjected them all ‐ regardless of location, supervisor or job duties ‐ to a centralized, company‐wide, age‐based plan to terminate them in the summer of 2004. Plaintiffs allege that this common scheme resulted in a termination rate of 10.3% for older workers, which is more than double the rate
3

for younger workers, which was 4.5%. (Fitzke Decl. [Doc. No. 330], Ex. 6 (Bendick Report ¶ 11).) Plaintiffs also allege that they have submitted extensive anecdotal evidence that links Seagate’s policies to the results. For example, evidence has been submitted to show that top executives made ageist remarks. Procedural History
The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification under the ADEA in October 2008, on the basis that Plaintiffs had met their initial burden of demonstrating that they were victims of a single discriminatory policy, practice, custom or plan. (Order dated October 24, 2008 [Doc. No. 120].) The Court further authorized notice to be sent to 526 individuals, 45 of which have consented to join as opt‐in Plaintiffs. At this time, there are 63 named and opt‐in Plaintiffs.
Prior to conditionally certifying the class, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the releases offered to those Plaintiffs terminated pursuant to the 2004 RIF were invalid as a matter of law. (Order dated May 28, 2008 [Doc. No. 84].) Thereafter, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Boylan, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP
4

Releases and denied Seagate’s motion for summary judgment as to the claims of
Plaintiff Paul Calcagno. (Order dated February 8, 2011 [Doc. No. 361].)
Motion for Decertification
A. Legal Standard
An action under the ADEA may be maintained against “any employer . . .
by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and
other employees similarly situated.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). “[T]he ADEA
incorporates enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and
provides that the ADEA shall be enforced using certain of the powers, remedies,
and procedures of the FLSA” Hoffmann‐La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165,
167 (1989)(citation omitted). The Court performs a two‐step process to determine
whether a case should be certified under the FLSA:
First, the court determines whether the class should be conditionally certified for notification and discovery purposes. At this stage, the plaintiffs need only establish a colorable basis for their claim that the putative class members were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. In the second stage, which occurs after discovery is completed, the court conducts an inquiry into several factors, including the extent and consequences of disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs, the various defenses available to the defendant that appear to be individual to each plaintiff, and other fairness and procedural considerations.
5

Dege v. Hutchinson Tech., Inc., Civil No. 06‐3754 (DWF/RLE), 2007 WL 586787, at
*1 (D. Minn. Feb. 22, 2007) (unpublished) (citations omitted).
In the first step,
the Court only must determine whether Plaintiffs have come forward with evidence establishing a colorable basis that the putative class members are the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan. The court does not make any credibility determinations or findings of fact with respect to contrary evidence presented by the parties at this initial stage.
Id. at *2 (citations omitted). This Court held that Plaintiffs met the first step when
it issued its Order conditionally certifying the ADEA class. This case is now at
the second step.
At this stage, the court has much more information on which to base its decision, and makes a factual determination on the similarly situated question. If the claimants are similarly situated, the district court allows the representative action to proceed to trial. If the claimants are not similarly situated, the district court decertifies the class, and the opt‐in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The class representatives – i.e. the original plaintiffs – proceed to trial on their individual claims.
Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Civ. Nos. 02‐3780 (JNE/JJG), 02‐4261
(JNE/JJG), 2006 WL 2830015, at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2006) (quoting Mooney v.
Aramco Servs., Inc., 54 F.3d 1207, 1213‐14 (5th Cir. 1995) (footnote omitted),
overruled on other grounds by Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003)).
6

The merits of the Plaintiffs’ claims are not considered with respect to whether decertification is appropriate. Nerland v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1019 (D. Minn. 2007). The Court’s decision regarding decertification is within its discretion. Id. at 1018. “Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that they are similarly situated.” Id. (citation omitted).
At the decertification stage, to determine whether class members are similarly situated, the Court should consider such factors as age variance, type of termination, division in the company in which they worked, employment status, supervisors and salaries. Ulvin v. N.W. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 141 F.R.D. 130, 131 (D. Minn. 1991).
1. Factual Disparities a. SIRP
It is Seagate’s position that those class members terminated through the SIRP are not similarly situated to those class members terminated through the RIF. The SIRP was offered to employees who would have been 60 years or older on or before January 2, 2005. (Bertelson Aff., Ex. 4.) Features of this program were full separation benefits and enhanced early retirement medical plan participation, depending on years experience and the age of the participant. (Id.)
7

On the other hand, the RIF was not limited by the age of the employee, and was focused on temporary employees and those employees with performance issues. (Id.) Seagate asserts that because the SIRP was a separate employment action that was different in scope, communication and effect than the RIF, employees terminated through one program are not similarly situated to those employees terminated from the other program. See, Ulvin v. N.W. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 943 F.2d 862, 865‐66 (8th Cir. 1991) (finding that as class members varied as to age, year of termination, division in the company in which they worked, employment status, supervisors and salaries, they were not similarly situated).
Seagate further asserts that the SIRP was intended as a voluntary program, while the RIF was involuntary. Those employees who volunteered to participate in SIRP have suffered no adverse employment action and are thus not similarly situated with the RIF plaintiffs. See Aliotta v. Bair, 614 F.3d 556, 565 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (finding that employees terminated through early retirement programs should not be grouped with employees terminated involuntarily). Plaintiffs respond that employees terminated through SIRP were pressured to participate, because if they did not, they would have been terminated in the RIF. The evidence demonstrates, however, that of the 503 SIRP eligible employees in 2004,
8

204 accepted SIRP benefits and 255 declined. Of the 255 that declined, 30 were later selected for termination through the RIF. (Estes Decl. ¶¶ 11‐16.) Accordingly, only 12% of SIRP eligible employees were later terminated through the RIF.
Seagate further asserts that Plaintiffs’ only allegation of impropriety concerning SIRP is that some Plaintiffs felt compelled or were pressured to elect SIRP benefits. The fact specific nature of such a constructive discharge claim necessarily requires individualized proof not appropriate for class treatment. West v. Border Foods, Inc., Civil No. 05‐2525, 2006 WL 1892527, at *9 (D. Minn. July 10, 2006). Accordingly, even as to those Plaintiffs terminated through SIRP, they are not similarly situated.
As noted above, it is Plaintiffs’ position that Seagate implemented a single, company‐wide plan in the summer of 2004 to reduce its work‐force, described by Seagate as the “RIF/SIRP Action.” The RIF/SIRP Action involved all Seagate U.S. facilities and the same guidelines, timeline and communications were used at each location. (Bertelson Aff., Exs. 1‐6, 10‐11, 14, 17, 23‐25, 30, 34‐35, 45, 61.) For example, in one company document, the RIF/SIRP Action was described as “concurrent reduction in force initiatives” and because it was a global initiative,
9

“the Action required a functional, rather than site, implementation plan. This required the HR Team, including site HR, the Benefits Product Center, HRIT, and Payroll working with Legal, IRC, the IT HelpDesk, Corporate Communication, and Finance to adopt a common set of tools, processes, documents, and project plan to successfully implement the Action” (Id. Ex. 1.)
Plaintiffs thus argue that all class members are similarly situated because they lost their jobs either through the SIRP or the RIF in 2004; all were full time employees; subject to the same corporate‐wide performance evaluation process; all were part of the same corporate structure and that Executive Vice Presidents had employees that crossed all reduction‐affected areas; all Seagate locations were affected by the RIF/SIRP Action; all received notice of termination during the same time period; the 2004 RIF/SIRP Action was planned at the corporate level and implemented with precision across the U.S.; the RIF/SIRP Action paid out the same benefits to all, based on age, length of service; and Seagate reported the RIF/SIRP Action as a joint plan on all corporate documents.
In support of their position that an early retirement program is not always treated as distinct from age‐based forced retirement, Plaintiffs note that in Glass v. IDS Fin. Servs. Inc., the district court held that a class properly included
10

division managers that were either terminated, demoted or forced to resign or retire as part of a pattern or practice of age discrimination. 778 F. Supp. 1029, 1080‐81 (D. Minn. 1991). The class in Glass, however, included employees who held the same position, were compensated the same, were evaluated by the same objective standards and lost their positions during the same period. The district court further held that since the EEOC was a party, the “similarly situated” standard did not apply. Id. at 1081.
Plaintiffs further assert that this Court does not address the merits of a claim in deciding decertification, therefore the Court must not decide at this time whether the SIRP program was voluntary. Plaintiffs argue that they have nonetheless put forth sufficient evidence at this stage to support their claims that employees terminated through SIRP did not do so voluntarily. For example, Plaintiff Ron Dols believes he had to either retire or be terminated. (Dols Dep. at 12 [Doc. 371‐10].) (See also, Calcagno Dep. at 58‐59, 172‐72 [Doc. No. 371‐4](took early retirement after he was told he would otherwise be laid off); England Dep. at 89‐90 [Doc. No. 371‐13] (older employees strongly encouraged to accept SIRP benefits).) Furthermore, the RIF/SIRP Action had features which reflect evidence of intentional age discrimination, as the SIRP was limited to older workers 60
11

years of age and up. Seagate also allegedly made misleading inducements to Plaintiffs regarding SIRP, designed to illegally reduce the number of older workers. For example, Seagate told SIRP eligible employees that the benefits being offered were “one time only.” (Bertelson Aff., Exs. 13 and 15.) Plaintiffs assert that this was untrue because the same benefits were offered to those terminated in the RIF. Because some employees learned the benefits were the same, they chose not to accept SIRP. (Malik Dep. 135‐36 [Doc. No. 371‐43]; Ex. 69.) Plaintiffs further assert that no evidence has been produced which shows that managers were directed to make sure the SIRP was voluntary or that employees would not be pressured to take it. In fact, evidence has been produced which demonstrates that managers may have been directed to “sell” the SIRP. (Bertelson Aff., Exs. 5, 6 and 8.)
Taking into consideration the relevant factors in determining whether to decertify a class ‐ age variance, type of termination, division in the company in which they worked, employment status, supervisors and salaries ‐ the Court finds that employees terminated through SIRP are not similarly situated with employees terminated through RIF.
The Court first notes that an early retirement program is not presumptively
12

discriminatory. See Houghton v. SIPCO, Inc. 38 F.3d 953, 959 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding that an offer of early retirement by itself does not violate ADEA, it merely gives an advantage to older employees who are eligible to accept it); Henn v. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y, 819 F.2d 824, 828 (7th Cir. 1987) (finding that an early retirement plan is not presumptively discriminatory); Aliotta v. Bair, 576 F. Supp.2d 113, 123 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal citations omitted) (finding that “[t]he option of early retirement can be beneficial to eligible employees because, while the risk in a RIF is shared by the entire workforce, the availability of an early retirement option affords eligible employees . . . ‘a means to mitigate that risk which was not available to other employees.’ Indeed, courts have called early retirement programs “in many situations, the fairest alternative available to a company,’ . . . and ‘a humane practice’. A voluntary buyout program combined with early or normal retirement or resignation is not an adverse employment practice.”)
Despite Plaintiffs’ assertion that certain employees felt pressured to leave their employment through SIRP, the facts show that other employees chose to participate in the program. If an employee voluntarily participated in SIRP, he/she did not suffer an adverse employment action and is therefore not similarly
13

situated to employees involuntarily terminated pursuant to the RIF. See, Aliotta at 123 (finding “a decision between early retirement and the risk of termination in a downsizing or reorganization is not sufficiently terrorizing to make acceptance of the early retirement incentive categorically involuntary.”) The fact that an employee could choose to participate in SIRP demonstrates a significant difference between the SIRP and the RIF.
The Court further finds that even among SIRP participants that have opted into this action, such Plaintiffs are not similarly situated. To prove they were discriminated against on the basis of age, each Plaintiff terminated through SIRP must show that he/she was forced to participate and that age was the “but for” cause for such forced participation. See Rahlf v. Mo‐Tech Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d 633, 637 (8th Cir. 2011). Clearly, this determination will be fact specific to each Plaintiff.
The Court thus finds that class members terminated through SIRP are not similarly situated with class members terminated through RIF, or with each other. The motion to decertify the claims of Plaintiffs whose employment was terminated through the SIRP will be granted.
14

b. RIF Seagate also argues that a class consisting of employees terminated through the RIF should be decertified as the RIF class members are not similarly situated to each other. Seagate asserts the RIF was implemented in a de‐ centralized manner, therefore Plaintiffs have failed to show the RIF plaintiffs were subjected to one common policy or plan to eliminate older workers. Ulvin, 141 F.R.D. at 131; Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1215 (5th Cir. 1995); Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 122 F.R.D. 463, 465 (D.N.J. 1988). In support, Seagate asserts the decisions regarding how to cut costs, which positions to eliminate or consolidate and the criteria applied in selecting employees for the RIF was delegated to various organizational vice presidents and directors. ([Doc. No. 95] (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 22‐28).) For example, in the Transducer Development organization run by Ken Allen, employees were classified by skill set. Allen then imposed a forced ranking criteria to select employees for the RIF. (Allen Decl. ¶¶ 11‐22 [Doc. No. 331].) These criteria were not used by other departments. (Id.) In the Advanced Assembly Development organization, Randy Figarson, Senior Engineering Director, stated in his declaration that he was responsible for selecting employees in his organization
15

for layoff. (Figarson Decl. ¶ 11 [Doc. No. 336].) Figarson stated that he considered the following factors when making his RIF selections: 1) how technology was evolving; 2) which employees had technical skills critical to evolving technology, the launch of new products and the organization’s mission; 3) technical expertise of the employee; and 4) past performance. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Seagate further asserts that other employees were selected for the RIF because their positions were entirely eliminated. (Glembocki Decl. ¶ 5 [Doc. No. 99].) Others were selected because their duties were automated or transferred to other locations. (Bernard Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16 [Doc. No. 358]; Ibele Decl. ¶¶ 14‐29 [Doc. No. 338].)
Seagate also asserts that the claims of those Plaintiffs terminated through the RIF are not similarly situated because they performed different jobs, at different grades and at different locations. Within the conditionally certified class, Plaintiffs worked in eight different locations, and held different job titles, ranging from non‐exempt Operators, administrative assistants, technicians, exempt engineers, sales personnel, and management employees, including Executive Directors. They also received correspondingly different salaries. Additionally, these Plaintiffs range in age from 41 to 67 years, and the length of
16

service ranged from 2 to 38 years. Because of the various differences between the RIF Plaintiffs, Seagate argues that decertification is appropriate. See Koren v. SuperValu, Inc., Civ. No. 00‐1479 (ADM/AJB), 2003 WL 1572002, at *16 (D. Minn. Mar. 14, 2003); Stone v. First Union Corp., 203 F.R.D. 532, 543 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
Plaintiffs respond that this case should proceed as a collective action as there is evidence of a centralized plan or direction from the top as to the implementation of the RIF. In support, Plaintiffs have submitted a corporate document entitled “RIF Guidelines” which provides: “Managers should choose among employees in an affected job classification in the following order: Contract/ Agency Temporary Employee; Active Employee Counseling ‐ Final Warning (within 12 months); Active Employee Counseling ‐ (2) First Warnings (within 12 months); “U” Performers; Employees with no performance appraisal ratings on file; Performance ‐ Lower Performers; Length of Service ‐ When performance is equal (Least senior goes first).” (Id. Ex 4.) Plaintiffs argue that there is evidence that these guidelines were generally followed. ([Doc. No. 371‐ 36] (Kenny Deposition at 43‐44, testifying that all organizations followed the RIF guidelines).)
Plaintiffs further argue that Seagate’s position that RIF terminations were
17

based on specialized skills does not change the fact that corporate‐wide plans and guidelines nonetheless set the standard. For example, the guidelines allow the use of specialized skills to terminate an employee to override the objective standards. (Id. Ex. 4, p. 6 “*Specialized skills may be considered in isolated instances where they are clearly shown and documented to be of overriding importance. VP and Human Resources must authorize any exceptions.”) Plaintiffs assert this exception was utilized repeatedly as to the class, including Plaintiff Thomes, Walter, Knutson, Olszewski, James Peterson, and Legut. In addition, Seagate put in place a non‐bump policy ‐ which prevented employees selected for layoff from bumping other employees. (Id. Exs. 4 and 17.) This policy assured that once an older employee was knocked out, he/she would have no way to remain with Seagate.
Furthermore, even where there is evidence of some decentralization, a collective action may still be appropriate where there is evidence of a bias on the part of top management. Hyman, 982 F. Supp. at 4. Plaintiffs have put forth evidence that top management, including the President and CEO made ageist remarks. (Walter Dep. at 217‐18 [Doc. No. 371‐65]; Gaba Dep. at 19‐20 [Doc. No. 371‐19; Volant Dep. at 16 [Doc. No. 371‐63]; Chwialskowski Dep. at 49 [Doc. No.
18

371‐5].) Plaintiffs further allege that older, terminated employees were forced to train in younger replacements, (Walseth Dep. at 17 [Doc. No. 371‐64]) and that younger, less qualified employees were retained over older, more qualified employees. (Kehrwald Dep. at 19 [Doc. No. 371‐35].) Plaintiffs further assert that younger employees were hired shortly before and shortly after the RIF. (Coates Dep. at 17‐18 [Doc. No. 371‐6]; Herath Dep. at 57 [Doc. No. 371‐28].)
To establish a prima facie case of pattern or practice discrimination, Plaintiffs must prove that Seagate regularly and purposefully treated employees over the age of 40 less favorably and that unlawful age discrimination was Seagate’s regular procedure or policy. EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 1999). “Proving isolated or sporadic discriminatory acts by the employer is insufficient . . . rather it must be established by a preponderance of the evidence that . . . ‘discrimination was the company’s standard operating procedure – the regular rather than the unusual practice.’” Id.
Because the motion before the Court is one for decertification, the Court does not look to the merits of the Plaintiffs’ pattern or practice claim. Plaintiff need only make substantial allegations of class‐wide discrimination, supported by affidavits or relevant statistics. At this stage, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
19

have met their burden of putting forth sufficient evidence that age discrimination may have been the standard operating procedure with respect to those employees selected for termination through the RIF. Evidence has been submitted that Seagate’s President and CEO, as well as other executives, may have made ageist comments, and there is evidence to suggest that younger employees were hired shortly before and after the RIF, that certain Plaintiffs were forced to train younger replacements, and older employees selected for layoff could not bump a younger, less experienced employee. Accordingly, the motion to decertify the RIF class is denied.
3. Piggybacking Seagate argues that should the Court grant their motion to decertify, all Plaintiffs, except Peterson and Olson, should be dismissed with prejudice as their claims are time‐barred. Seagate asserts there is no further basis to equitably toll the limitations period to permit re‐filing as these Plaintiffs have not filed an administrative charge. See Ruehl v. Viacom, 500 F.3d 375, 388 (3d Cir. 2007) (finding that “when a class is decertified because the plaintiffs are not ‘similarly situated,’ those plaintiffs are in a qualitatively different position than plaintiffs in a certified class, and our reasons for applying the single filing rule . . .[is]
20

inapplicable.”)
Plaintiffs assert that should the Court decertify this action, the Plaintiffs
who did not personally file an EEOC charge should not have their claims
dismissed with prejudice. In Tolliver v. Xerox Corp., the Second Circuit held that
the single filing rule would apply even where a class had been decertified. Id.
918 F.2d 1052, 1058‐60 (2d Cir. 1990).
The purpose of the administrative charge requirement is to afford the agency the opportunity to “seek to eliminate any alleged unlawful practice by informal methods of conciliation, conference, and persuasion.” 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). If the agency charged with that task is satisfied that a timely filed administrative charge affords it sufficient opportunity to discharge these responsibilities with respect to similar grievances, it serves no administrative purpose to require the filing of repetitive ADEA charges any more than repetitive Title VII charges, . . at least in the absence of statutory language compelling such a result.
Id. at 1057. Here, the purposes of the administrative filing requirement was met
when Plaintiffs Peterson and Olson filed their administrative charges ‐ the EEOC
and the employer were notified and thereby given the opportunity to resolve the
matter through informal methods.
Although the Court will decertify the collective action with respect to those
Plaintiffs terminated through SIRP, the Court will continue to allow these
Plaintiffs to piggyback on the administrative charges filed by Peterson and Olson.
21

As this Court held in its Order dated November 20, 2007, the administrative
charges filed by Peterson and Olson were sufficient to put Seagate on notice of
the class claims of age discrimination. (Doc. No. 46). The issue was again
addressed by Magistrate Judge Boylan in the Report and Recommendation dated
December 28, 2010, in which he recommended that this Court reject Seagate’s
request to reconsider the prior decision allowing the class to piggyback on the
administrative charges filed by Peterson and Olson. (Doc. No. 311 at 9.) This
Court did deny the request to reconsider and adopted the Report and
Recommendation on February 8, 2011. (Doc. No. 361). Because Seagate
continues to offer no basis upon which this Court should reconsider its prior
decision, the request will again be denied.
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Expert, Dr. Marc Bendick
A. Legal Standard
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
22

The role of the trial court is to serve as “gatekeepers to ‘insure that the
proffered expert testimony is both relevant and reliable.’” Wagner v. Hesston
Corp., 450 F.3d 756, 758 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340
F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2003)). In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
the Supreme Court provided some general observations for the lower courts to
consider in making determinations as to whether the scientific knowledge is
relevant and reliable, such as whether it has been tested, subjected to peer review
and publication, what is the known or potential rate of error, and whether it is
generally accepted. ” 509 U.S. 579, 593‐95 (1993).
In Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Court extended the
Daubert reasoning to non‐scientist experts stating:
We conclude that Daubert’s general principles apply to the expert matters described in Rule 702. The Rule, in respect to all such matters, ‘establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability.’ It ‘requires a valid . . . connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.’ And where such testimony’s factual basis, data, principles, methods, or their application are called sufficiently into question, . . . the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has ‘a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the [the relevant] discipline.’
526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590‐92) (citation omitted).
When addressing the reliability factor, the Court held that “nothing in
23

either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). Moreover,
[T]he factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility, and it is up to the opposing party to examine the factual basis for the opinion in cross‐examination. Only if the expert’s opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury must such testimony be excluded. Bonner v. ISP Tech, Inc., 259 F. 3d 924, 929‐30 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Hose v. Chicago NW. Transp. Co., 70 F. 3d 968, 974 (8th Cir. 1996)). B. Whether Expert Report Is Relevant and/or Reliable Marc Bendick earned his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Wisconsin in 1975, and has been engaged in the full‐time practice of economics, specializing in employment and related issues, for the last 30 years. (Fitzke Decl., Ex. 6 (Expert Report of Marc Bendick, Ph.D.)) He was retained by Plaintiffs to analyze age patterns in the RIF/SIRP Action. (Id. at 3.) Based on his analysis, he reached the following four conclusions: that in the RIF/SIRP Action, employees over 40 years or older were terminated at a higher rate than those under 40 ‐ the
24

termination rate being 10.3%, more than double the 4.5% rate for younger workers; the age‐related difference is statistically significant and cannot be reasonably attributed to chance alone; a statistically significant age‐related difference remains after taking into account explanations other than age; and the age‐related difference in termination rates is consistent with social science research documenting employers’ conscious or unconscious bias against older workers based on age stereotypes. (Id. at 5.)
Seagate moves to strike this report as Bendick failed to disclose that his methodology combines voluntary retirements with involuntary layoffs. (Id., Ex. 15 (Bendick Dep. at 53, 56‐58).) Seagate asserts that Bendick’s analysis assumes that all 204 employees who elected SIRP would have been laid off had they refused the offer. Because only employees over age 60 were eligible for SIRP, including this group among those terminated through RIF imparts an inevitable bias to the results, which Bendick does not address in his report.
Based on the Court’s finding that class members terminated through SIRP are not similarly situated to class members terminated through the RIF, the Court agrees that the SIRP and RIF must be analyzed separately. Other courts have disapproved the use of methodology that combines voluntary retirements with
25

involuntary retirements. See, e.g., Libront v. Columbus McKinnon Corp., 832 F. Supp. 597, 608 (W.D.N.Y. 1993); Aliotta, 614 F.3d at 566.
Seagate further asserts that Bendick’s rebuttal report is unsound because it concludes that the SIRP was categorically involuntary. (Bertelson Aff. [Doc. No. 371], Ex. 18 (Bendick Rebuttal Report p. 17‐22).) The Court agrees that such a conclusion is not supported by the record. Accordingly, Bendick’s statistical analysis that combines SIRP and RIF data is excluded as irrelevant and unreliable. See Aliotta, 614 F.3d at 568‐69 (finding that where plaintiff’s expert’s statistics do not control for employee choice in a buyout, the statistics “tell us nothing about why older employees took the buyouts, and are therefore not relevant to determining whether [the employer] discriminated against them.”)
Seagate argues that Bendick’s report should be stricken for the additional reason that he was not provided the documentation which shows the actual RIF comparisons of Seagate’s decision‐makers. Seagate’s managers completed Reorganization Employee Selection Justification (“RESJ”) forms, which describes why certain employees were chosen for the RIF (See, e.g., Madsen Decl., Ex. 1). These forms document the actual comparison made by managers in determining who would be subject to layoff. These forms were not given to Bendick,
26

however. As a result, Bendick invented his own comparator groups and performed statistical analyses. A key flaw in Bendick’s facts is that all employees are presumed to be candidates for termination. (Bendick Dep. 128.) Bendick created three comparison groups: job level, function and location. (Id. at 129.) He then assigned all employees to one of three job levels: executive, professional and support employees. He also assigned three work functions: engineering, administrative and manufacturing. He then separated employees by location.
Bendick agreed the level and function categories were completely subjective, and that he created these categories without reference to how Seagate actually classified employees. (Id. 97‐100, 120‐21.) As Bendick lacks knowledge of job functions and individual titles, Seagate argues that he cannot opine with certainty that his model approximates groups of similarly situated employees.
Because the “facts” as to how employees were selected for RIF are in dispute, the Court finds that these arguments go to the weight of Bendick’s analysis, not its admissibility. Seagate will be free to cross‐examine Bendick at trial concerning his RIF analysis and the facts underlying such analysis.
Finally, Seagate argues that Bendick’s opinion as to age stereotyping is not supported by the evidence and is therefore inadmissible. In Section VI of his
27

expert report, Bendick discussed employer bias based on age stereotypes. Given the existence of negative ageist stereotypes, Bendick concluded that his statistical analysis of the Seagate SIRP/RIF is consistent the statistical patterns that result when ageist stereotypes are applied. (Fitzke Decl. [Doc. No. 330], Ex. 6 (Bendick Report ¶ 34).) Seagate argues that this opinion must be excluded as Bendick did not perform an analysis as to whether any age‐based stereotypes exist or existed at Seagate. Rather, the opinions are based on circular logic ‐ there is evidence based on studies and behavior of other employers that people in general have negative ageist stereotypes ‐ negative stereotypes may lead to adverse employment actions ‐ because Seagate took adverse actions against Plaintiffs, they must have resulted from negative stereotypes. The flaw in this logic is that Seagate has provided legitimate, non‐discriminatory reasons for its employment decisions, and Bendick does not take these into consideration.
Plaintiffs argue that Bendick properly relied on well‐supported research on negative age‐based stereotypes for the limited purpose of stating that his findings of statistically significant age‐related disparities in Seagate’s 2004 RIF/SIRP Action are consistent with research identifying the causes of age‐related disparities. Other courts have admitted similar testimony. Butler v. Home
28

Depot, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1257 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Int’l Healthcare Exch., Inc. v. Global Healthcare Exch., LLC, 470 F. Supp.2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
In Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the plaintiffs had submitted expert testimony from a sociological expert who testified that, based on a social framework analysis, “Wal‐Mart has a ‘strong corporate culture’ that makes it ‘vulnerable’ to gender bias.” 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2553 (2011). “He could not, however, ‘determine with any specificity how regularly stereotypes play a meaningful role in employment decisions at Wal–Mart. At his deposition . . . [the expert] conceded that he could not calculate whether 0.5 percent or 95 percent of the employment decisions at Wal–Mart might be determined by stereotyped thinking.’” Id. (internal citation omitted). The Supreme Court held that the expert’s testimony as to gender stereotyping could be disregarded, as it did not address the question as to whether Wal‐Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination. Id. at 2554.
As applied to this case, to the extent that Bendick would testify that age stereotyping exists, such testimony is relevant and reliable and will not be excluded. Because Bendick did not perform an analysis as to whether any age‐ based stereotypes existed at Seagate in 2004, however, he is precluded from
29

offering any testimony or opinion that age stereotyping was a factor in identifying employees for the Seagate 2004 RIF. In addition, given the Court’s finding that Bendick’s statistical analysis that combined the numbers for the SIRP and RIF is inadmissible, his statement that this statistical analyses are consistent with age stereotyping no longer has a basis. Seagate’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment‐Disparate Impact Claim.
A. Standard Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non‐moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322‐23 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no disputed issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. This burden can be met “by ‘showing’ ‐ that is, pointing out to the district court ‐ that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. The party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995).
30

B. Discussion Under the ADEA, “an employer is liable for age discrimination on a disparate‐impact theory if one of its policies has had an adverse effect upon employees age forty and over . . . regardless of whether the employer actually had a discriminatory intent.” Clark v. Matthews Int’l Corp., 628 F.3d 462 (8th Cir. 2010) vacated in part on rehearing on other grounds, 639 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. 2011). To prove a prima facie case, Plaintiffs must: “(1) identify a specific, facially neutral employment practice and then (2) present ‘statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient’ to show (3) that the practice caused an adverse employment action (4) that disparately affected workers over age forty.” Id. In this case, Plaintiffs have identified the SIRP/RIF as the facially neutral employment practice that had an adverse impact on employees over the age of forty. As discussed above, however, the SIRP and RIF were distinct programs, and SIRP was only offered to employees over the age of sixty. Employees that chose to terminate their employment through SIRP did not suffer an adverse employment action. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to include SIRP under Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claim. See Libront, 832 F. Supp. at 617 (finding that employees who voluntarily accepted early retirement benefits should not be
31

considered in statistics to reach a finding of disparate impact). See also, Adams v. Lucent Techs., Inc., No. 2:03CV300, 2007 WL 14593 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 3, 2007) aff’d 284 Fed. Appx. 296 (6th Cir. July 17, 2008) (holding that an early retirement program offered to employees was not a neutral policy that could form the basis for a disparate impact claim).
Seagate next argues that Plaintiffs have never identified a specific policy or element of the RIF that had an adverse impact on older workers. Plaintiffs respond that they have identified a specific element of the RIF that has had an adverse impact ‐ the guidelines which allow for a subjective decision making process.
Once a specific policy is identified, the Court must determine which employees were subject to such policy. Clark, 628 F.3d at 467. Once the relevant pool is identified, the Court must then determine the percentage of older employees in the pool before and after the RIF. Id. at 468 (“whether older workers in the pool of non‐management employees at the St. Louis Graphics Division were disparately impacted by the terminations requires consideration of the percentage of older employees in the group before and after the RIF”) (emphasis added); Chambers v. Metro. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 351 F.3d 848 (8th
32

Cir. 2003) (finding that “statistical evidence is meaningless without some analysis of the age of the entire workforce []before and after the reduction in force.”) EEOC, 191 F.3d at 952 (same). Seagate argues that Plaintiffs have not submitted the relevant statistics to support their disparate impact claim. Instead, Plaintiffs’ expert provided a statistical analysis that improperly included employees terminated through SIRP.
Nevertheless, using the numbers contained in Table One of the Plaintiffs’ expert report, the most relevant statistic is the percentage of employees over the age of forty that remain after a facially neutral policy has been implemented. The total number of employees over the age of 40 before the SIRP and RIF was 7,530 and the total employees over age 40 was 5,018 ‐ therefore 66.64% of employees before the SIRP and RIF were over the age of forty. After the SIRP and RIF were implemented, the total number of employees was 6900 and the total number of employees over the age of forty was 4501, or 65.23%. The Eighth Circuit has previously found that a 4% drop in employment rate of employees over the age of forty is not sufficiently substantial to create an inference that plaintiffs were terminated because of their age. Clark, 628 F.3d at 469.
Nor is the percentage change substantial when looking at only those
33

terminated through the RIF. After the SIRP election process closed, 204 eligible employees elected to participate in SIRP. (Fitzke Decl., Ex. 31 (Estes Decl. ¶ 10).) Subtracting the 204 SIRP terminees, the percentage difference is substantially the same ‐65.71% after the SIRP but before RIF, and 65.23% after the RIF.
Plaintiffs respond that a statistical analysis of the workforce before and after the RIF is not mandated in the Eighth Circuit. Rather, Eighth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent provide that statistical analyses are not “framed in terms of any rigid mathematical formula.” Teamsters v. United States, et al., 431 U.S. 324 (1977). Instead, the statistical analyses need only raise a substantial inference of discrimination. Emanuel v. Marsh, 897 F.2d 1435, 1442 (8th Cir. 1990).
While the decisions in Clark, Chambers and EEOC are clear that an analysis of the age of the entire workforce before and after a reduction in force must be considered when determining the merits of a disparate impact claim, even if other statistical analyses could sufficiently raise a substantial inference of discrimination, Plaintiffs have failed to provide such an analysis. The Court thus finds that Seagate has demonstrated that it is entitled to judgment on the disparate impact claim.
34

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Decertification is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. Only those Plaintiffs terminated through RIF may proceed as a collective action; 2. Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in this Memorandum Opinion; and 3. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ Disparate Impact Claim is GRANTED. Date: August 15, 2011
s/ Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis Chief Judge United States District Court
35

 
 CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 1 of 59
CLOSED,CV,PHV,PROTO
U.S. District Court District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:07−cv−02502−MJD−AJB

Peterson et al v. Seagate US LLC et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Michael J. Davis Referred to: Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan Demand: $100,000 Cause: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff
James Peterson

Date Filed: 05/25/2007 Date Terminated: 01/26/2012 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Andrea R Ostapowich Bertelson Law Offices, PA 333 Washington Ave N Ste 402 Mpls, MN 55401 612−278−9832 Fax: 612−340−0190 Email: andrea@bertelsonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson Bertelson Law Offices, PA 333 Washington Ave N Ste 402 Mpls, MN 55401 612−278−9832 Fax: 612−340−0190 Email: beth@bertelsonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E St NW Rm A4−240 Washington, DC 20049 202−434−2064 Fax: 202−434−6424 Email: dkohrman@aarp.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office 333 Washington Ave N, Ste 402 Mpls, MN 55401 612−359−0050 Fax: 612−340−0190 Email: dsarnoski@qwestoffice.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E St NW Rm A4−160 Washington, DC 20049 202−434−2082 Email: lmccann@aarp.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 2 of 59

Thomas W Osborne AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E St NW Rm A4−141 Washington, DC 20049 202−434−2060 Email: tosborne@aarp.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Olson

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paul Calcagno

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 3 of 59

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rebecca Chwialkowski

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gary Egbert

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 4 of 59

Plaintiff Narenda Garg
Plaintiff Luana Goodnough

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel B Kohrman

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 5 of 59

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Grunwald

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Hurd

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 6 of 59

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rick Kehrwald

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Legut

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 7 of 59

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Karen Lieberg

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 8 of 59

Plaintiff Charles Lucas

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Michael McDaniel

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 9 of 59

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Theresa Raskob

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Thomas Schaff

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 10 of 59

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jane Thomes

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Keith Turnball TERMINATED: 11/12/2008

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 11 of 59

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Susan Walseth

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lee Walter TERMINATED: 10/25/2011

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 12 of 59

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ronald Wrase for and on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Paul Olszewski personal representative of the estate of Mark Joseph Olszewski

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 13 of 59

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John R. Stoebner as trustee of the bankruptcy case for Lee Walter and Beverly Walter, personal representative of the estate of Lee Walter

represented by Andrea R Ostapowich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Beth E Bertelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel B Kohrman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorene R Sarnoski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie A McCann (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas W Osborne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Seagate US LLC

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson Littler Mendelson, PC 80 S 8th St Ste 1300 Mpls, MN 55402−2136 612−313−7603 Fax: 612−305−1191 Email: kwilson@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marko J Mrkonich Littler Mendelson, PC

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 14 of 59

80 S 8th St Ste 1300 Mpls, MN 55402−2136 612−630−1000 Fax: 651−305−0579 Email: mmrkonich@littler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King Littler Mendelson, PC 2001 Ross Ave Ste 1500 Dallas, TX 75201−2931 214−880−8106 Email: agking@littler.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J Voss Littler Mendelson, PC 80 S 8th St Ste 1300 Mpls, MN 55402−2136 612−630−1000 Fax: 612−630−9626 Email: avoss@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Timmerman Littler Mendelson, PC 80 S 8th St Ste 1300 Mpls, MN 55402−2136 612.313.7610 Fax: 612.630.9626 Email: jtimmerman@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K Fitzke Littler Mendelson, PC 80 S 8th St Ste 1300 Mpls, MN 55402−2136 612−313−7642 Fax: 612−630−9626 Email: sfitzke@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Seagate Technology

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 15 of 59

Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Seagate

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Seagate Technology, Inc.

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 16 of 59

Defendant Seagate 4 LLC TERMINATED: 12/23/2008
Defendant Seagate Technology LLC
Defendant Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc.

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 17 of 59

Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Seagate Technology, US, LLC

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Seagate Software, Inc.

represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 18 of 59

Defendant Seagate Holdings, LLC

Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathryn Mrkonich Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marko J Mrkonich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Allan G King (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew J Voss (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey A Timmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan K Fitzke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 06/18/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against all defendants (Filing fee $350 receipt number 4013451) assigned to Judge Michael J. Davis per Civil Rights List referred to Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, filed by all Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jc) (QC'd by akl) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
Summons Issued as to Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (jc) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
2 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER to Complaint AND AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS' COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC.(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
3 MOTION to Dismiss by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
4 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 3 MOTION to Dismiss: Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2007 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 14E before Judge Michael J. Davis. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 19 of 59

06/18/2007 06/18/2007
06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/19/2007 06/22/2007 06/22/2007 06/25/2007

5 MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
6 Declaration of ESTHER WILLIAMS in Support of 4 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 3 MOTION to Dismiss, 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1# 2 Exhibit(s) 2# 3 Exhibit(s) 3# 4 Exhibit(s) 4# 5 Exhibit(s) 5# 6 Exhibit(s) 6# 7 Exhibit(s) 7# 8 Exhibit(s) 8# 9 Exhibit(s) 9# 10 Exhibit(s) 10# 11 Exhibit(s) 11# 12 Exhibit(s) 12# 13 Exhibit(s) 13# 14 Exhibit(s) 14# 15 Exhibit(s) 15# 16 Exhibit(s) 16# 17 Exhibit(s) 17# 18 Exhibit(s) 18# 19 Exhibit(s) 19# 20 Exhibit(s) 20# 21 Exhibit(s) 21−A# 22 Exhibit(s) 21−B# 23 Exhibit(s) 22# 24 Exhibit(s) 23# 25 Exhibit(s) 24# 26 Exhibit(s) 25# 27 Exhibit(s) 26# 28 Exhibit(s) 27# 29 Exhibit(s) 28# 30 Exhibit(s) 29# 31 Exhibit(s) 30# 32 Exhibit(s) 31)(Fitzke, Susan) DOCUMENTS SEALED PER 201 ORDER. (KT) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
7 Declaration of SUSAN KUGLER in Support of 3 MOTION to Dismiss, 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 4 Notice of Hearing on Motion filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 32)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
8 AFFIDAVIT of SUSAN K. FITZKE in SUPPORT OF 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 33# 2 Exhibit(s) 34)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 2 Answer to Complaint,, 3 MOTION to Dismiss, 5 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 8 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 6 Declaration in Support,,,,, 7 Declaration in Support,, 4 Notice of Hearing on Motion (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
12 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified title on 6/26/2007 (gjs). (Entered: 06/25/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 20 of 59

06/25/2007
06/27/2007 06/27/2007
08/09/2007 08/09/2007
08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007

13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 12 Defendant's Response to Motion, (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 6/26/2007 (gjs). (Entered: 06/25/2007)
14 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 3 MOTION to Dismiss Responses due by 8/9/2007 Replies due by 8/21/2007.. Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on June 27, 2007. (mjds) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
15 Amended ORDER granting 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by David Olson,, James Peterson, Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on June 27, 2007. (SMS) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
16 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
17 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 4# 2 Exhibit(s) 5# 3 Exhibit(s) 6# 4 Exhibit(s) 7# 5 Exhibit(s) 8# 6 Exhibit(s) 9# 7 Exhibit(s) 10# 8 Exhibit(s) 11# 9 Exhibit(s) 12# 10 Exhibit(s) 13# 11 Exhibit(s) 14# 12 Exhibit(s) 15# 13 Exhibit(s) 16)(Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
18 AFFIDAVIT of Paul Calcagno in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
19 AFFIDAVIT of Chwialkowski in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
20 AFFIDAVIT of Egbert in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
21 AFFIDAVIT of Garg in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
22 AFFIDAVIT of Goodnough in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
23 AFFIDAVIT of Grunwald in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
24 AFFIDAVIT of Hurd in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
25 AFFIDAVIT of Kerhwald in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
26 AFFIDAVIT of Legut in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
27 AFFIDAVIT of Lieberg in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) DOCUMENT SEALED PER 201 ORDER. (KT) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
28 AFFIDAVIT of Lucas in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
29 AFFIDAVIT of McDaniel in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
30 AFFIDAVIT of Raskob in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
31 AFFIDAVIT of Schaff in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 21 of 59

08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007
08/14/2007
08/14/2007
08/14/2007 08/14/2007

32 AFFIDAVIT of Thomes in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
33 AFFIDAVIT of Turnbull in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
34 AFFIDAVIT of Walseth in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
35 AFFIDAVIT of Walter in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
36 AFFIDAVIT of Wrase in OPPOSITION TO 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
37 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 16 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
38 EXHIBIT re 17 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, Placeholder for Exhibits 1, 2, 3 of Bertelson Affidavit by all plaintiffs filed by all plaintiffs. SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 8/9/07. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified on 8/13/2007 (akl). (Entered: 08/09/2007)
39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 21 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 24 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 35 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 34 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 18 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 28 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 16 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 32 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 23 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 38 Exhibit, 27 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 37 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 31 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 33 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 29 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 36 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 20 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 25 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 17 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion,, 22 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 19 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 30 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 26 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
41 AFFIDAVIT of SUSAN K. FITZKE in SUPPORT OF 3 MOTION to Dismiss SUPPLEMENTAL filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit 35# 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 36# 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 37) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 8/14/07. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 8/14/2007 (akl). (Entered: 08/14/2007)
42 Supplemental Declaration of ESTHER WILLIAMS in Support of 40 Reply to Response to Motion,, 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 38)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 22 of 59

08/27/2007
08/29/2007 11/20/2007 11/29/2007 11/30/2007
12/03/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007

Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 42 Declaration in Support,, 40 Reply to Response to Motion,, 41 Affidavit in Support of Motion, (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
44 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC of Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology HDD Holdings, Seagate Technology, and Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. and Quinta Corporation as corporate parent and/or publicly held company. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
45 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael J. Davis : Motion Hearing held on 8/29/2007 re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Seagate, Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (SMS) (Entered: 08/29/2007)
46 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 3 Motion to Dismiss (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on November 20, 2007. (SMS) Modified text on 11/20/2007 (jdf). (Entered: 11/20/2007)
47 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 11/29/2007)
48 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase In Response to Defendant's Request to Bring a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Court's Nov. 20, 2007 Order. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
49 ORDER denying 47 request to file a motion for reconsideration letter to District Judge filed by Seagate, Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc.. Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on December 3, 2007. (SMS) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
51 MEMORANDUM in Support re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
52 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases : Motion Hearing set for 2/8/2008 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 14E before Judge Michael J. Davis. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
53 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 51 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald,

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 23 of 59

12/19/2007 12/20/2007
12/20/2007 12/20/2007
12/21/2007 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008
01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008

David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
55 ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 1/29/2008 02:15 PM in suite 720 before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 12/19/07. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(jam) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
56 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR//DOCUMENT NOT SIGNED//SEE DOCUMENT NO. 57//First MOTION to Extend Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date and Memorandum in Support of its Motion by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 12/21/2007 (jdf). (Entered: 12/20/2007)
57 MOTION to Extend Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date and Memorandum in Support of its Motion by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 57 MOTION to Extend Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date and Memorandum in Support of its Motion (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
59 ORDER granting 57 Motion to Extend the Briefing Schedule. The Memorandum in Opposition is due by 1/22/08 at noon and the reply brief is due by 2/1/08 at noon. The motion for summary judgment hearing has been moved to 2/22/08 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Michael J. Davis to accomodate the extended briefing. Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 12/21/07. (kmw) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
60 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
61 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in OPPOSITION TO 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 3 − unreported case Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co.)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
62 DECLARATION of Esther Williams in Opposition to 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases filed by all defendants. REFILING EXHIBITS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 &2)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 1/22/2008 (jam). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 62 Declaration in Opposition, 61 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 60 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
64 EXHIBIT re 62 Declaration in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
65 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by all parties .(Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 1/22/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
66 MOTION Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Under U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 24 of 59

01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008 01/22/2008
01/23/2008 01/29/2008 01/31/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 02/01/2008
02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008

4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
67 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 66 MOTION Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Under U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) : Motion Hearing set for 4/3/2008 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 14E before Judge Michael J. Davis. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 1/23/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
68 MEMORANDUM in Support re 66 MOTION Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Under U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 1/23/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
69 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in SUPPORT OF 66 MOTION Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Under U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A−C)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 1/23/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
70 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 67 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 66 MOTION Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Under U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) , 69 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 68 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 1/23/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 01/22/2008)
71 NOTICE to Attorneys. Oral argument for the Motion for Interocutory Appeal has been cancelled. (kmw) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
72 Minute Entry Pretrial Conference held before Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate District Judge, at St. Paul, Minnesota. Scheduling order to be issued. Initial Pretrial Conference held on 1/29/2008. (jam) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
73 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 3/1/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 1/31/08. (jam) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
74 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 2/1/2008 (dch). (Entered: 02/01/2008)
75 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 74 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
76 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 74 Memorandum in Support of Motion Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
77 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 66 MOTION Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Under U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) filed by all plaintiffs. (Sarnoski, Dorene) Modified text on 2/12/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 02/11/2008)
78 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 77 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Sarnoski, Dorene) Modified text on 2/12/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 02/11/2008)
79 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by James Peterson and all Plaintiffs for Memo in Opposition to Motion for Certification of Issues (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 02/11/2008)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 25 of 59

02/14/2008 02/22/2008 04/14/2008
04/15/2008 05/28/2008 05/30/2008
05/30/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008
05/30/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008 05/30/2008
06/25/2008

80 ORDER denying 66 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on February 14, 2008. (SMS) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
81 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael J. Davis: Motion Hearing held on 2/22/2008 re 50 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Invalidity of Releases plaintiffs. Motion was moved, argued and taken under advisement.(Court Reporter Ron Moen) (KMW) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
82 STIPULATION for Protective Order by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase, Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
83 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 4/15/08. (kt) (Entered: 04/15/2008)
84 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on May 28, 2008. (SMS) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
85 MOTION to Certify Class by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)A)(Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 6/2/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 05/30/2008)
86 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION Motion Hearing set for 9/12/2008 09:00 AM in Minneapolis − Courtroom 15E before Judge Michael J. Davis. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
87 MEMORANDUM in Support re 85 MOTION to Certify Class Filed Under Seal (placeholder) filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 5/30/08. (KT) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
88 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in SUPPORT OF 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 5, # 2 Exhibit(s) 6, # 3 Placeholder for exhibits filed under seal)(Ostapowich, Andrea) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 5/30/08. (KT) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
89 AFFIDAVIT of David Olson in SUPPORT OF 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
90 AFFIDAVIT of James Peterson in SUPPORT OF 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
91 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 87 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
92 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re: 85 MOTION to Certify Class; 86 NOTICE of Hearing; 87 MEMORANDUM in Support; 88 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertleson; 89 AFFIDAVIT of James Peterson; 91 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate by all plaintiffs (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text and links on 6/2/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 05/30/2008)
93 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Telephone Conference regarding deposition questions held on 6/25/2008. (jam) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 26 of 59

07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 07/01/2008
07/01/2008
07/01/2008
07/22/2008 07/22/2008 07/22/2008

94 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Defendant's Exhibit A, # 2 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
95 DECLARATION of Tom Hall in Opposition to 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit A to Declaration of Tom Hall)(Fitzke, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 7/1/08. (KT) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
96 DECLARATION of Kenneth Allen in Opposition to 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit B to Declaration of Kenneth Allen)(Fitzke, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 7/1/08. (KT) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
97 DECLARATION of Garrick Villaume in Opposition to 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all defendants. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
98 DECLARATION of Vicki Boyer in Opposition to 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all defendants. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
99 DECLARATION of Jerry Glembocki in Opposition to 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all defendants. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
100 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in OPPOSITION TO 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit(s) C − Peterson Depo Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit(s) D − Calcagno Depo Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit(s) E − Chwialkowski Depo Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit(s) F − Pagliolo et al. v. Guidant Corporation et al., # 6 Exhibit(s) G − Peterson et al. v. Seagate et al., # 7 Exhibit(s) H − Koren et al. v. Supervalu, Inc. et al., # 8 Exhibit(s) I − West et al. v. Border Foods, Inc. et al., # 9 Exhibit(s) J − Ray v. Motel 6, # 10 Exhibit(s) K − Rappaport v. Embarq Management Company, # 11 Exhibit(s) L − Scott v. Canadian Nat'l Railway, # 12 Exhibit(s) M − Felderman v. Sunrise Enterprises, # 13 Exhibit(s) N − Simmons v. T−Mobile USA, # 14 Exhibit(s) O − Basco et al. v. Wal−Mart Stores et al., # 15 Exhibit(s) P − Salazar et al. v. Agriprocessors, Inc.)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 95 Declaration in Opposition, 100 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion,,, 94 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 96 Declaration in Opposition, 97 Declaration in Opposition, 99 Declaration in Opposition, 98 Declaration in Opposition (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 95 Declaration in Opposition, 96 Declaration in Opposition (PERSONAL SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL) (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
103 MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
104 NOTICE by Defendants re 103 MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 7/22/2008 (vem). (Entered: 07/22/2008)
105 MEMORANDUM in Support re 103 MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 27 of 59

07/22/2008 07/22/2008
08/11/2008 08/11/2008 08/11/2008
08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 08/15/2008
08/21/2008 08/24/2008 09/12/2008

106 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in SUPPORT OF 103 MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A − Ricciardi v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., # 2 Exhibit(s) B − Pagliolo v. Guidant Corp.)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
107 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 103 MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), 105 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 106 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 104 Notice (Other) (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 7/23/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 07/22/2008)
108 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 103 MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) MOTION to Jointly Certify the Court's 11/20/07 &5/28/08 Orders for Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
109 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 108 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 109 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 108 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
111 RESPONSE in Support re 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
112 AFFIDAVIT of Andrea Ostapowich in SUPPORT OF 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Placeholder for exhibits 2−5, # 3 Exhibit(s) 6, # 4 Exhibit(s) 7, # 5 Exhibit(s) 8, # 6 Exhibit(s) 9, # 7 Exhibit(s) 10, # 8 Exhibit(s) 11)(Ostapowich, Andrea) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 8/15/08. (KT) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
113 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 111 Response in Support of Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 112 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 113 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 111 Response in Support of Motion (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
115 REPLY re 108 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Jointly Certify The Court's November 20, 2007 &May 28, 2008 Orders For Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(B) filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
116 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 103 Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal the November 20, 2007 Order and the May 28, 2008 Order. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 8/24/08. (akl) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
117 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Michael J. Davis: Motion Hearing held on 9/12/2008 re 85 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs.

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 28 of 59

10/17/2008 10/17/2008 10/24/2008 10/30/2008 10/30/2008 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 11/05/2008 11/10/2008

Motion was moved, argued and taken under advisement. Order to be filed on this matter. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (kmw) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
118 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Daniel B. Kohrman by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Bertelson, Beth) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
119 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR − replaced by doc. #123. MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Laurie A. McCann by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter. (Bertelson, Beth) Modified on 11/4/2008 (Chutich, Mike). (Entered: 10/17/2008)
120 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion to Authorize Notice to Potential Class Members pursuant to Hoffman−LaRoche v. Sperling 103 ; Defendants must provide to Plaintiffs' counsel names and addresses of individuals employed by Defendants who were 40 years of age or more on the date in 2004 when Defendants offered them retirement or termination separation agreements; the notice to potential class members, "Exhibit A" to Plaintiffs' Motion, is approved. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 10/23/08. (GRR) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
121 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: telephone hearing by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text 10/31/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 10/30/2008)
122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 121 Letter to Magistrate Judge, (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
123 Amended MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Laurie A. McCann by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Bertelson, Beth) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY − ORDER granting 118 , 123 Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorneys Daniel B Kohrman and Laurie A McCann for plaintiffs. Fees paid; receipt number 3−004897. Approved by Clerk Richard D Sletten on 10/31/08. (MMC) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
124 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: November 13, 2008 telephone hearing by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Mrkonich, Marko) Modified text on 11/5/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 11/05/2008)
125 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Claims Alleged by Keith Turnbull by Keith Turnball, Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 29 of 59

11/10/2008 11/13/2008 11/13/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/19/2008 12/22/2008 01/09/2009 02/17/2009
02/18/2009 02/19/2009
02/19/2009 02/19/2009

126 ORDER TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF KEITH TURNBALL re 125 Stipulation of Dismissal, filed by Keith Turnball and Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 11/10/08. (kmw) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
127 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Telephone Conference held on 11/13/2008. (kt) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
128 TEXT ONLY ENTRY. Verbal ORDER that Plaintiffs and Defendant shall each be allowed no more than 5 expert witnesses. Said order by the Court shall be reflected in the proposed Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order submitted by the parties. Signed by Judge Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (kt) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
129 STIPULATION For Order Extending Deadlines by all parties. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text and filers on 11/26/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 11/25/2008)
130 ORDER for extending deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 11/25/08. (kt) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Telephone Hearing held on 12/18/2008. Order to be issued regarding class notice issues. (jam) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
132 ORDER that Plaintiffs' informal motion to amend the "Class Notice" is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 12/18/08. (jam) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
133 STIPULATION for dismissal of claims alleged against Defendant Seagate 4 LLC by all parties. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 12/22/2008 (jdf). (Entered: 12/19/2008)
134 ORDER DISMISSING PARTY re 133 Stipulation filed by Plaintiffs and Seagate Technology 4 LLC. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 12/22/08. (kmw) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
135 NOTICE OF PENDING ACTION AND ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 1/9/09. (RLR) QC'd jam (Entered: 01/12/2009)
136 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Thomas W. Osborne by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Bertelson, Beth) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY − ORDER granting 136 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Thomas W Osborne for plaintiffs. Fee paid; receipt number 3−005360. Approved by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 2/18/09. (MMC) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
137 MOTION to Compel by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
138 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 137 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 3/5/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
139 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in SUPPORT OF 137 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1a, # 3 Exhibit(s) 2, # 4 Exhibit(s) 3, # 5 Exhibit(s)4, # 6 Exhibit(s) 5, # 7 Exhibit(s) 6, # 8 Exhibit(s) 7, # 9 Exhibit(s) 7a, # 10 Exhibit(s) 8, # 11 Exhibit(s) 9, # 12 Exhibit(s) 9a, # 13 Exhibit(s) 10, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Exhibit(s) 15, # 16 Exhibit(s) 16, # 17 Exhibit(s) 16a, # 18 Exhibit(s) 17, # 19 Exhibit(s) 18, # 20 Exhibit(s) 19,# 21 Exhibit(s) 20, # 22 Exhibit(s) 22, # 23 Exhibit(s) 23, # 24 Exhibit(s) 24, # 25 Exhibit(s) 25)(Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 2/20/2009 (jdf). (Entered: 02/19/2009)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 30 of 59

02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009 02/19/2009
02/26/2009 02/26/2009
02/26/2009 02/26/2009 02/26/2009
03/04/2009 03/05/2009
03/05/2009

140 AFFIDAVIT of Andrea Ostapowich in SUPPORT OF 137 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
141 Declaration of Daniel Kohrman in Support of 137 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
142 MEMORANDUM in Support re 137 MOTION to Compel filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
143 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by all plaintiffs re 142 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by all plaintiffs. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/19/2009)
144 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 142 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 140 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 138 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 137 MOTION to Compel, 139 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 141 Declaration in Support, 143 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 2/20/2009 (jdf). (Entered: 02/19/2009)
145 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 137 MOTION to Compel Discovery, Motion for Monthly Case Management Conferences Under F.R.C.P. 16, and Motion to Extend Time for Opt−Ins to Join filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
146 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in OPPOSITION TO 137 MOTION to Compel Discovery, Motion for Monthly Case Management Conferences under F.R.C.P. 16, and Motion to Extend Time for Opt−ins to Join filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Index of Exhibits to Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1, # 3 Exhibit(s) Index 2, # 4 Exhibit(s) 3, # 5 Exhibit(s) 4, # 6 Exhibit(s) 5, # 7 Exhibit(s) 6, # 8 Exhibit(s) 7, # 9 Exhibit(s) 8, # 10 Exhibit(s) 9, # 11 Exhibit(s) 10, # 12 Exhibit(s) 11, # 13 Exhibit(s) 12, # 14 Exhibit(s) 13, # 15 Exhibit(s) 14, # 16 Exhibit(s) 15, # 17 Exhibit(s) 16)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 2/27/2009 (jdf). (Entered: 02/26/2009)
147 DECLARATION of Hemanth Salem in Opposition to 137 MOTION to Compel filed by all defendants. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
148 DECLARATION of Tom Hall in Opposition to 137 MOTION to Compel filed by all defendants. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
149 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC re 146 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion,,, 148 Declaration in Opposition, 147 Declaration in Opposition, 145 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
150 NOTICE "Consent to Join" by 33 individuals who have chose to opt into this case re 135 Order. (RLR) QC'd on 3/25/2009 (nes). (Entered: 03/04/2009)
151 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Motion Hearing held on 3/5/2009 re 137 MOTION to Compel filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson, Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Motion taken under advisement. Order to be issued. (Tape #CD (Ctrm. 3C) (STP)) (kt) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
152 TEXT ONLY ENTRY. Verbal ORDER ruling on 137 MOTION to Compel. Parties are to submit a proposed order for the Court's approval regarding extension of time for opt−ins to join this action. Counsel for both sides are also to meet and confer to finalize the parameters and procedures for e−discovery in this case. Once a resolution has been reached, said counsel shall file a stipulation and prepare a

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 31 of 59

03/10/2009
03/10/2009 03/10/2009 03/30/2009
03/31/2009 04/06/2009 04/06/2009
04/13/2009
04/20/2009 04/22/2009
04/30/2009
05/01/2009

proposed order for the Courts approval. If no resolution is reached, the parties are instructed to submit red line versions of their respective sides e−discovery proposals to the Court for in camera review, and the Court will thereafter render a decision on this issue.(kt) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
153 NOTICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 135 Order Notice of Consent to Join the Case of 7 additional opt−ins (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
154 DECLARATION of James Roberts in Opposition to 137 MOTION to Compel filed by all defendants. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
155 RESPONSE re 137 MOTION to Compel (Defendants' Response to Declaration of Ramona Giroux Submitted in Connection with Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel) filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 03/10/2009)
156 NOTICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase Consent to Join the Case for Additional Opt−In (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
157 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 137 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 3/31/09. (kt) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
158 ORDER EXTENDING OPT−IN PERIOD AND AMENDING THE CASE CAPTION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 4/6/09. (kt) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
159 NOTICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase Notice of Consent to Join the Case of an additional opt−in (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/06/2009)
160 NOTICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase Consent to Join the Case for Additional Opt−In (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
161 ORDER re deadlines for compliance with 157 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 4/20/09. (kt) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
162 NOTICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase Consent to Join the Case for Additional Opt−In (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/22/2009)
163 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/30/2009)
164 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Software,

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 32 of 59

05/08/2009 05/21/2009 06/22/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009
09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009

Inc., Seagate Holdings, LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 05/01/2009)
165 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Telephone Conference held on 5/8/2009. (kt) (Entered: 05/08/2009)
166 NOTICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, James Peterson, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, David Olson, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase Consent to Join the Case for Additional Opt−In (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
167 ORDER re deadlines for compliance re 157 Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 6/22/09. (kt) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
168 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
169 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses : Motion Hearing set for 9/23/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
170 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in SUPPORT OF 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 Raskob Responses (Set I), # 2 Exhibit(s) 2 Walter Responses (Set I), # 3 Exhibit(s) 3 Garg Responses (Set I), # 4 Exhibit(s) 4 Olson Responses (Set I), # 5 Exhibit(s) 5 Calcagno Responses (Set I), # 6 Exhibit(s) 6 Kehrwald Responses (Set I), # 7 Exhibit(s) 7 McDaniel Responses (Set I), # 8 Exhibit(s) 8 Garg Responses (Set II), # 9 Exhibit(s) 9 McDaniel Responses (Set II), # 10 Exhibit(s) 10 Raskob Answers (Set II), # 11 Exhibit(s) 11 Raskob Responses (Set II), # 12 Exhibit(s) 12 4/17/09 Letter, # 13 Exhibit(s) 13 5/26/09 Letter, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14 6/19/09 Letter, # 15 Exhibit(s) 15 7/31/09 Letter, # 16 Exhibit(s) 16 Raskob Excerpts, # 17 Placeholder for 16(a) Raskob Excerpts (UNDER SEAL), # 18 Exhibit(s) 17 Walter Excerpts, # 19 Exhibit(s) 18 Garg Excerpts, # 20 Exhibit(s) 19 Olson Excerpts, # 21 Exhibit(s) 20 Calcagno Excerpts, # 22 Exhibit(s) McDaniel Excerpts, # 23 Exhibit(s) 22 Walker v. Northwest Airlines, # 24 Exhibit(s) 23 Naquin v. Unocal Corp, # 25 Exhibit(s) 24 Sims v. Wyandotte Cty, # 26 Exhibit(s) 25 Ortiz v. Donatelle Assocs., LLC)(Fitzke, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE on 9/10/2009 (LPH). (Entered: 09/09/2009)
171 MOTION to Compel Discovery by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
172 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery : Motion Hearing set for 9/23/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
173 MEMORANDUM in Support re 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
174 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in SUPPORT OF 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 33 of 59

09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009 09/09/2009
09/09/2009 09/09/2009

Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5, # 6 Exhibit(s) 6, # 7 Exhibit(s) 7, # 8 Exhibit(s) 8, # 9 Exhibit(s) 9, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11, # 12 Exhibit(s) 12, # 13 Exhibit(s) 13, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Exhibit(s) 15, # 16 Exhibit(s) 16, # 17 Exhibit(s) 17, # 18 Exhibit(s) 18, # 19 Placeholder for Exhibit 18a, # 20 Exhibit(s) 19, # 21 Exhibit(s) 20, # 22 Exhibit(s) 21, # 23 Exhibit(s) 22, # 24 Exhibit(s) 23, # 25 Exhibit(s) 24, # 26 Exhibit(s) 25, # 27 Exhibit(s) 26, # 28 Exhibit(s) 27, # 29 Exhibit(s) 28, # 30 Exhibit(s) 29)(Ostapowich, Andrea) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE 9/9/109 Modified on 9/10/2009 (jam). (Entered: 09/09/2009)
175 AFFIDAVIT of Dorene Sarnoski in SUPPORT OF 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
176 Declaration of Ramona Giroux in Support of 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
177 AFFIDAVIT of Marc Bendick in SUPPORT OF 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
178 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 173 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
179 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery, 176 Declaration in Support, 172 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 174 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 177 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 175 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 173 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 178 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 9/10/2009 (jz). (Entered: 09/09/2009)
180 MEMORANDUM in Support re 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/09/2009)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 34 of 59

09/09/2009 09/16/2009
09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009
09/16/2009

181 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC PERSONAL SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
182 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in OPPOSITION TO 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 2/2/09 Ltr to Andrea Ostapowich, # 2 Exhibit(s) 1(a) Placeholder − Confidential Employee Listing, # 3 Exhibit(s) 2 Placeholder − Defs' Supp Answer to Pltfs' Interrogatory #8, # 4 Exhibit(s) 3 OWBPA Disclosures, # 5 Exhibit(s) 4 7/13/09 Letter to Beth Bertelson, # 6 Exhibit(s) 5 9/8−9/09 Email, # 7 Exhibit(s) 6 9/9/09 Ltr to Beth Bertelson, # 8 Exhibit(s) 7 Defs' Amd &Supp Privilege Log, # 9 Exhibit(s) 8 12/15/08 Ltr to Beth Bertelson, # 10 Exhibit(s) 1/28/09 Ltr to Beth Bertelson, # 11 Exhibit(s) 10 9/8/09 Email, # 12 Exhibit(s) 8/21/09 Email, # 13 Exhibit(s) 8/28/09 Ltr to Beth Bertelson, # 14 Exhibit(s) 13 Scotts v. Liberty Mutual, # 15 Exhibit(s) 14 Butler v. Kmart Corp, # 16 Exhibit(s) 15 Treat v. Tom Kelley Buick Pontia, # 17 Exhibit(s) 16 In Re: Zurn Pex Plumbing, # 18 Exhibit(s) 17 9/16/09 Ltr to Beth Bertelson)(Fitzke, Susan) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 9/16/09. (KT) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
183 DECLARATION of Marquam S. Piros in Opposition to 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
184 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC (Service of Sealed Documents) (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
185 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
186 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in OPPOSITION TO 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 letter of August 18, 2009, # 2 Excerpts Raskob Depo, # 3 Excerpts Calcagno Depo, # 4 Excerpts Olson Depo)(Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
187 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 185 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
188 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel,

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 35 of 59

09/16/2009 09/17/2009
09/17/2009 09/18/2009 09/23/2009
09/25/2009 10/16/2009
10/19/2009 10/20/2009 10/26/2009 10/28/2009

David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff re 186 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 185 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 187 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, filed by all plaintiffs. (Sarnoski, Dorene) Modified on 9/17/2009 (jz). (Entered: 09/16/2009)
189 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
190 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC re 183 Declaration in Opposition, 189 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 182 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 184 Certificate of Service. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 9/18/2009 (jz). (Entered: 09/17/2009)
191 DECLARATION of James E. Roberts in Opposition to 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 09/17/2009)
192 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Claims Alleged by Terrance Friday by all parties. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text and filers on 9/21/2009 (jz). (Entered: 09/18/2009)
193 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Motion Hearing held on 9/23/2009 re 171 MOTION to Compel Discovery, 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses. Defendants orally ordered on the record to submit documents to chambers on or before September 30, 2009 for incamerareview. Parties may submit briefing. Briefing may be filed under seal if necessary. Motions taken under advisement. (Tape #Courtroom C3) (kt) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
194 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF TERRANCE FRIDAY re 192 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by all parties. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 9/24/09. (KMW) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
195 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Claims Alleged by John Kirchberg by Seagate 4 LLC, Keith Turnball, Seagate Technology LLC, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, James Peterson, David Legut, Narenda Garg, Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate, Gary Egbert, Karen Lieberg, William Grunwald, Ronald Wrase, Susan Walseth, David Olson, Charles Lucas, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Theresa Raskob, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Rick Kehrwald, David Hurd, Jane Thomes, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate US LLC, Paul Calcagno, Thomas Schaff, Daniel Michael McDaniel. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
196 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 168 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 171 Motion to Compel (Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 10/19/09. (kt) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
197 ORDER DISMISSING PARTY re 195 Stipulation of Dismissal. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 10/19/09. (KMW) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
198 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
199 ORDER that Defendants' 198 REQUESTS are granted as provided herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 10/28/09. (kt) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 36 of 59

10/30/2009
11/02/2009 11/19/2009 12/17/2009 01/29/2010 01/29/2010 03/01/2010 03/01/2010 03/01/2010
03/01/2010
03/01/2010

200 Joint MOTION to Seal Documents by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
201 ORDER sealing certain documents on file with the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 11/2/09. (kt) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
202 ORDER/NOTICE of Settlement Conference set for 12/15/2009 09:00 AM in Judge's Chambers, Suite 334 (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 11/18/09. (kt) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
203 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Settlement Conference held on 12/17/2009. No settlement reached. (kt) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
204 STIPULATION to extend deadlines by all parties. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 2/1/2010 (jz). (Entered: 01/29/2010)
205 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 1/29/10. (kt) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
207 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 206 Motion for Summary Judgment. Date and time to be determined. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text and link on 3/2/2010 (jz). (Entered: 03/01/2010)
208 MEMORANDUM in Support re 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
209 AFFIDAVIT of Andrea Ostapowich in SUPPORT OF 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 6, # 2 Exhibit(s) 8, # 3 Exhibit(s) 9, # 4 Exhibit(s) 10, # 5 Exhibit(s) 11, # 6 Exhibit(s) 12, # 7 Exhibit(s) 13, # 8 Exhibit(s) 14, # 9 Exhibit(s) 15, # 10 Placeholder for Exhibits 1−5, 7, 16(a), 16(b)) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 3/1/10. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified on 3/1/2010 (akl). Modified text on 3/2/2010 (jz). (Entered: 03/01/2010)
210 AFFIDAVIT of Dorene R. Sarnoski in SUPPORT OF 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/01/2010)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 37 of 59

03/01/2010
03/01/2010
03/02/2010 03/02/2010 03/16/2010 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 04/01/2010 04/01/2010

211 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 208 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
212 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 207 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 209 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 211 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,,, 210 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 208 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 3/2/2010 (jz). (Entered: 03/01/2010)
213 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson, Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/2/10. (KMW) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
214 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases : Motion Hearing set for 4/15/2010 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
215 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases : Motion Hearing set for 4/15/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
216 RESPONSE in Support re 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
217 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 216 Response in Support of Motion. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 4/2/2010 (jz). (Entered: 04/01/2010)
218 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
219 ORDER that defendants' request for extension of time to file a responsive memorandum is granted. Defendants shall have until noon on April 2, 2010, to serve and file their submissions. Plaintiffs shall thereafter have until April 10, 2010, to file an additional reply memorandum. Plaintiffs initial reply brief shall not be included for purposes of applicable word and/or page limits. Signed by

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 38 of 59

04/02/2010 04/02/2010 04/02/2010
04/02/2010
04/02/2010
04/05/2010 04/05/2010 04/09/2010 04/09/2010

Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 4/1/10. (kt) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 04/02/2010)
221 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 220 Motion for Summary Judgment: Date and Time to be determined. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified link and text on 4/5/2010 (akl). (Entered: 04/02/2010)
222 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in SUPPORT OF 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno, and in Opposition to 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) W−ee (Opt−In Plaintiffs' Responses to Request for Production of Documents, # 2 Exhibit(s) ff (Calcagno Depo Excerpts), # 3 Exhibit(s) gg (Hall Depo Excerpts))(Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 4/2/2010 (kt). (Entered: 04/02/2010)
223 Declaration of Susan Kugler in Support of 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno, and in opposition to 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A−J SIRP Elections, # 2 Exhibit(s) K−T Elections to Participate, # 3 Exhibit(s) U−V EEOC Charges)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 4/2/2010 (kt). (Entered: 04/02/2010)
224 MEMORANDUM in Support re 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno, and in opposition to 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 4/2/2010 (kt). (Entered: 04/02/2010)
225 ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno filed by Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 4/5/10. (KMW) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
226 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno : Motion Hearing set for 5/18/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
227 REPLY to Response to Motion re 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
228 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 227 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 39 of 59

04/09/2010
04/09/2010 04/12/2010 04/22/2010 04/22/2010 05/11/2010
05/11/2010 06/07/2010 06/07/2010 06/07/2010 06/07/2010

Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
229 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 227 Reply to Response to Motion. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
230 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno : Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 4/12/2010 (kt). (Entered: 04/09/2010)
231 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases : Motion Hearing set for 6/3/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
232 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno : Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
233 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases : Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
234 STIPULATION for Order Extending Deadlings Relating to the Parties' Damage Experts by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Seagate, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
235 ORDER FOR EXTENDING DEADLINES RELATING TO THE PARTIES' DAMAGE EXPERTS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 5/11/10. (kt) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
236 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE to Attorneys re: 237 Motion for Protective Order. The hearing scheduled at 9:00 a.m. on June 29, 2010, has been moved to 3:00 p.m. The parties should appear at 3:00 p.m. on June 29, 2010, in Courtroom 3C, St. Paul, MN, for the cross summary judgment motions hearing. (kat) Modified text on 6/15/2010 (jz). (Entered: 06/07/2010)
237 MOTION for Protective Order by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
238 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 237 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 6/29/2010 03:00 PM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
239 MEMORANDUM in Support re 237 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC.

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 40 of 59

06/07/2010 06/07/2010 06/08/2010 06/08/2010 06/08/2010 06/08/2010 06/14/2010

(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
240 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in SUPPORT OF 237 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A: Depo Excerpts, Charles England, Jr., # 2 Exhibit(s) B: Memo dated 6/10/03, # 3 Exhibit(s) C: Memo dated 10/20/03, # 4 Exhibit(s) D: Plaintiffs' Collective Interrogatories to Defendant (Set VIII), # 5 Exhibit(s) E: Plaintiffs' Collective Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant (Set XII), # 6 Exhibit(s) F: Letter dated 5/14/10, # 7 Exhibit(s) G: Letter dated 5/18/10, # 8 Exhibit(s) H: Depo Excerpts, Paul Calcagno)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
241 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC re 238 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 237 MOTION for Protective Order, 239 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 240 Affidavit in Support of Motion. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 6/8/2010 (jz). (Entered: 06/07/2010)
242 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
243 AFFIDAVIT of Dorene R. Sarnoski in OPPOSITION TO 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 3, # 2 Exhibit(s) 4, # 3 Exhibit(s) 5, # 4 Exhibit(s) 6, # 5 Placeholder for Exhibits 1 &2)(Ostapowich, Andrea) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 6/9/10. (KT) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
244 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 242 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
245 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 243 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, 244 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 242 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 6/9/2010 (jz). (Entered: 06/08/2010)
246 MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Expert by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 41 of 59

06/14/2010 06/15/2010 06/18/2010 06/22/2010 06/22/2010 06/22/2010 06/22/2010
06/22/2010 06/30/2010

Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
247 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 246 MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Expert : Motion Hearing set for 7/20/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
248 REPLY to Response to Motion re 220 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Mrkonich, Marko) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
249 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 06/18/2010)
250 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 237 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
251 AFFIDAVIT of Andrea Ostapowich in OPPOSITION TO 237 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4)(Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
252 Declaration of Andrew Schell in Support of 250 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
253 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 250 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
254 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 251 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion,, 250 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 252 Declaration in Support, 253 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 6/23/2010 (jz). (Entered: 06/22/2010)
255 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd,

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 42 of 59

07/01/2010
07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/06/2010 07/13/2010 07/13/2010 07/20/2010 08/02/2010 08/02/2010

Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff re: Defs letter of June 18, 2010. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
256 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Motion Hearing held on 7/1/2010 re 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of the 2004 SIRP Releases filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson, Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Motion taken under advisement. RRto be issued. (Court Reporter Carla Bebault and Tape #Ctrm. 3C) (kt) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
257 MEMORANDUM in Support re 246 MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Expert filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
258 AFFIDAVIT of Dorene R. Sarnoski in SUPPORT OF 246 MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Expert filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Exhibit(s))(Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
259 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff re 258 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 257 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
260 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 246 MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Expert filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
261 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in OPPOSITION TO 246 MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Expert filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 (June 4, 2010 Ltr to Bertelson), # 2 Exhibit(s) 2 (June 24−26 Email Exchange), # 3 Exhibit(s) 3 (Aff of Srv on Bendick), # 4 Exhibit(s) 4 (Aff of Srv on Bendick &Egan Cons.), # 5 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
262 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Motion Hearing held on 7/20/2010 re 246 MOTION to Quash Subpoena on Expert filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson, Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Motion taken under advisement. Order to issue. (Tape #Ctrm 3C) (kt) (Entered: 07/20/2010)
263 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. A total of 1 transcripts are associated with this filing. (cb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
264 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on July 1, 2010 before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (65 pages). Court Reporter: Carla Bebault (E−mail: Carla_Bebault@mnd.uscourts.gov. Telephone: (651) 848−1220). Redaction

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 43 of 59

08/02/2010 08/06/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010 08/10/2010
08/10/2010
08/10/2010

Request due 8/23/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/2/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/1/2010. For information on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (cb) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
265 ORDER denying 237 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 08/02/2010. (LMB) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
266 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: Telephone Conference regarding discovery issues held on 8/6/2010. (kt) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
268 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence : Motion Hearing set for 8/24/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
269 MEMORANDUM in Support re 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
270 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in SUPPORT OF 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 9, # 6 Exhibit(s) 12, # 7 Exhibit(s) 13, # 8 Exhibit(s) 14, # 9 Exhibit(s) 16, # 10 Exhibit(s) 17, # 11 Exhibit(s) 18, # 12 Exhibit(s) 19, # 13 Exhibit(s) 20, # 14 Exhibit(s) 21, # 15 Exhibit(s) 23, # 16 Exhibit(s) 24, # 17 Exhibit(s) 25, # 18 Exhibit(s) A, # 19 Exhibit(s) B, # 20 Placeholder for Exhs. 5−8, 10, 11, 15) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 8/11/10. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified on 8/11/2010 (akl). (Entered: 08/10/2010)
271 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 269 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
272 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 269 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence, 271 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, 270 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 268 Notice of Hearing on Motion. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 44 of 59

08/10/2010 08/13/2010 08/13/2010 08/16/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010
08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010
08/17/2010

273 STIPULATION to Extend Deadlines by all parties. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/10/2010)
274 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. A total of 1 transcripts are associated with this filing. (cb) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
275 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 9/23/2009 before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (75 pages). Transcriber: Carla Bebault (E−mail: Carla_Bebault@mnd.uscourts.gov. Telephone: (651) 848−1220). Redaction Request due 9/3/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/13/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/12/2010. For information on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (cb) (Entered: 08/13/2010)
276 ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 8/16/10. (kt) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
277 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
278 AFFIDAVIT of Susan K. Fitzke in OPPOSITION TO 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 EEOC Determination Peterson, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2 EEOC Determination Olson, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3 Depo Excerpts Peterson, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4 Depo Excerpts Olson, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5 Depo Excerpts Stuchlik)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
279 DECLARATION of Dennis Hudson in Support to 277 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 8/18/2010 (akl). (Entered: 08/17/2010)
280 DECLARATION of Terry Kennedy with attached Exhibit A in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified text on 8/18/2010 (akl). (Entered: 08/17/2010)
281 DECLARATION of Greg Lafferty in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
282 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR−WILL REFILE−DECLARATION of Camilla Lyn Gallegos Lane in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 8/18/2010 (akl). (Entered: 08/17/2010)
283 DECLARATION of Curt Rubald with attached Exhibits A−B in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 8/18/2010 (akl). (Entered: 08/17/2010)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 45 of 59

08/17/2010 08/17/2010 08/17/2010
08/18/2010 08/18/2010 08/19/2010 08/20/2010 08/20/2010 08/20/2010 08/24/2010

284 DECLARATION of John Sosa−Trustham in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
285 DECLARATION of Dennis Hudson in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
286 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC re 277 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 282 Declaration in Opposition, 281 Declaration in Opposition, 278 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion,, 283 Declaration in Opposition, 285 Declaration in Opposition, 280 Declaration in Opposition, 284 Declaration in Opposition, 279 Declaration in Support. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified link and text on 8/18/2010 (akl). (Entered: 08/17/2010)
287 DECLARATION of Camilla Lyn Gallegos Lane in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
288 DECLARATION of Hemanth Salem in Opposition to 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s), # 2 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 08/18/2010)
289 ORDER granting in part, denying in part, moot in part 246 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 8/19/10. (kt) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
290 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR−NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey A Timmerman on behalf of Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Timmerman, Jeffrey) Modified text on 8/23/2010 (jz). (Entered: 08/20/2010)
291 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew J Voss on behalf of Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Voss, Andrew) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
292 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey A Timmerman on behalf of Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Timmerman, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/20/2010)
293 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan: CIVIL MOTION HEARING held on 8/24/2010 re 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson,

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 46 of 59

08/26/2010
10/01/2010 10/04/2010 10/12/2010 10/12/2010 11/05/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010 12/13/2010

Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Defendant to submit a responsive timeline by August 27, 2010. Motions taken under advisement as of: August 27, 2010. ORDER TO BE ISSUED. (Court Reporter Shaddix and Tape #Ctrm 3C) (LMB) (Entered: 08/24/2010)
294 I>DEFENDANTS' TIMELINE OF EVENTS RELATING TO NOTICE OF CLAIMS re 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence DEFENDANTS' TIMELINE OF EVENTS RELATING TO NOTICE OF CLAIMS filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Voss, Andrew) Modified text on 8/27/2010 (jz). (Entered: 08/26/2010)
295 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE with Attachment by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Mrkonich, Marko) Modified text on 10/4/2010 (jz). (Entered: 10/01/2010)
296 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
297 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Allan G. King by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Voss, Andrew) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY − ORDER granting 297 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Allan G. King for Seagate, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. Fee paid; receipt number 4−049199. Approved by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 10/12/10. (MMC) (Entered: 10/14/2010)
298 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Bertelson, Beth) (Entered: 11/05/2010)
299 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
300 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
301 ORDER ON REQUEST TO INCREASE WORD LIMIT re 298 Letter to Magistrate Judge, filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson, Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Defendants request for an

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 47 of 59

12/15/2010 12/16/2010 12/16/2010 12/17/2010
12/23/2010 12/23/2010
12/23/2010

expanded word limit is GRANTED [Docket No. 298] as provided herein. The word limit for briefing by each party is hereby expanded to 18,000 words. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 12/10/2010. (LMB) Modified text on 12/13/2010 (lmb). (Entered: 12/13/2010)
302 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 12/15/2010. Plaintiff to notice their motion to compel for 1/14/11 at 10:00 a.m. in St. Paul Courtroom 3C. (LMB) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
303 Third MOTION to Compel by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
304 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 303 Third MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set for 1/14/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3C (STP) before Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
305 ORDER re 276 Order: Based upon the arguments of counsel and all files, records and proceedings herein, the Court hereby orders an extension of the Decertification briefing deadlines as follows: Defendants Motion to De−Certify a Conditional Class shall be served and filed on or before February 1, 2011. Plaintiffs Response Brief shall be served and filed by March 1, 2011. Defendants Reply Brief shall be served and filed by March 15, 2011. During the December 15, 2010 telephonic conference with the Court, Plaintiffs also stated their intent to file a motion to compel discovery. The following briefing schedule shall apply to Plaintiffs motion to compel: Plaintiffs Motion to Compel shall be served and filed on or before December 24, 2010. Defendants Response Brief shall be served and filed by January 7, 2011. SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 12/17/2010. (LMB) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
306 MEMORANDUM in Support re 303 Third MOTION to Compel filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
307 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in SUPPORT OF 303 Third MOTION to Compel filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Errata 2, # 2 Exhibit(s) 3, # 3 Exhibit(s) 10, # 4 Exhibit(s) 11, # 5 Exhibit(s) 12, # 6 Exhibit(s) 13, # 7 Exhibit(s) 14, # 8 Exhibit(s) 15, # 9 Exhibit(s) 16, # 10 Exhibit(s) 17, # 11 Exhibit(s) 18, # 12 Exhibit(s) 19, # 13 Exhibit(s) 20, # 14 Exhibit(s) 21, # 15 Exhibit(s) 22, # 16 Exhibit(s) 23, # 17 Exhibit(s) 24, # 18 Exhibit(s) 25, # 19 Exhibit(s) 26, # 20 Exhibit(s) 27, # 21 Exhibit(s) 28, # 22 Exhibit(s) 29, # 23 Exhibit(s) 30, # 24 Exhibit(s) 31, # 25 Exhibit(s) 32, # 26 Exhibit(s) 33, # 27 Exhibit(s) 36, # 28 Exhibit(s) 37, # 29 Exhibit(s) 38, # 30 Exhibit(s) 39, # 31 Exhibit(s) 40, # 32 Exhibit(s) 41, # 33 Exhibit(s) A, # 34 Exhibit(s) B, # 35 Exhibit(s) C, # 36 Exhibit(s) D, # 37 Exhibit(s) E, # 38 Exhibit(s) F, # 39 Exhibit(s) G, # 40 Exhibit(s) H, # 41 Exhibit(s) I, # 42 Exhibit(s) J)(Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
308 EXHIBIT re 307 Affidavit in Support of Motion,,,,, Placeholder for Documents Filed Under Seal by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 48 of 59

12/23/2010 12/23/2010 12/28/2010 12/29/2010 01/03/2011 01/07/2011

Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 12/23/10. (KT) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
309 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 306 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
310 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 306 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 309 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate,,, 307 Affidavit in Support of Motion,,,,, 308 Exhibit,,, (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
311 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the file and documents contained therein, including memorandums, affidavits, and exhibits, and in consideration of arguments presented at hearing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of 2004 SIRP Releases be granted [Docket No. 206]; and 2. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding All Claims Asserted by Paul Calcagno be denied [Docket No. 220]. Objections to RRdue by 1/12/2011. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 12/28/2010. (LMB) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
312 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR−EXHIBIT re 307 Affidavit in Support of Motion,,,,, by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 48, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 49)(Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 12/30/2010 (jz). (Entered: 12/29/2010)
313 EXHIBIT re 307 Affidavit in Support of Motion by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 48, # 2 Exhibit(s) 49)(Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 1/3/2011 (jz). (Entered: 01/03/2011)
314 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 303 Third MOTION to Compel filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 49 of 59

01/07/2011
01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/11/2011 01/11/2011 01/12/2011 01/14/2011
01/25/2011 01/26/2011 01/26/2011

(Entered: 01/07/2011)
315 DECLARATION of Susan K. Fitzke in Opposition to 303 Third MOTION to Compel filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1−7 (Correspondence, Supp 2d Privilege Log), # 2 Placeholder for 8−25 &28−36, # 3 Exhibit(s) 26 &27, # 4 Exhibit(s) 37−44)SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 1/7/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 1/11/2011 (akl). (Entered: 01/07/2011)
316 DECLARATION of Susan Kugler in Opposition to 303 Third MOTION to Compel filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
317 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC re 314 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 316 Declaration in Opposition, 315 Declaration in Opposition, (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
318 OBJECTION to 311 Report and Recommendations filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
319 OBJECTION to 311 Report and Recommendations as to revocation facts.. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
320 *TEXT ONLY ENTRY* NOTICE to Attorneys: The TIME of the motion hearing on January 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. has been changed. The hearing will commence at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, January 14, 2011. (kat) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
325 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan: MOTION HEARING held on 1/14/2011 re 303 Third MOTION to Compel filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson, Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Motion taken under advisement as of January 14, 2011. Written order to be issued. (Court Reporter Ron Moen). (LMB) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
321 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 319 , 311 Report and Recommendation filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
322 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 318 Report and Recommendation filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
323 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 322 Response to Objection to Report and Recommendation, filed by Paul

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 50 of 59

01/26/2011 01/27/2011
02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011

Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
324 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 322 Response to Objection to Report and Recommendation, (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
326 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATED TO NON−PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE: re 267 MOTION for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence filed by Ronald Wrase, David Legut, Gary Egbert, Luana Goodnough, Lee Walter, Susan Walseth, Daniel Michael McDaniel, William Grunwald, Thomas Schaff, James Peterson, David Olson, Narenda Garg, David Hurd, Theresa Raskob, Karen Lieberg, Rick Kehrwald, Jane Thomes, Paul Calcagno, Charles Lucas, Rebecca Chwialkowski. Based upon the file and documents contained therein, including memorandums, affidavits, and exhibits, and in consideration of arguments presented at hearing, it is hereby Recommended that plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence be denied [Docket No. 267]. Objections to RRdue by 2/10/2011. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 01/27/2011. (LMB) (Entered: 01/27/2011)
327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action, MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D., MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
328 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim : Motion Hearing set for 4/29/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 15E (MPLS) before Chief Judge Michael J. Davis. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
329 MEMORANDUM in Support re 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
330 Declaration of Susan K. Fitzke in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1−4 Exhibits Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit(s) 5 Topel Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit(s) 6 Bendick Expert Report, # 4 Exhibit(s) 7−14 Seagate Depo Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit(s) 15 Bendick Depo Excerpts, # 6 Exhibit(s) 16−22 Plaintiffs' Depo Excerpts, # 7 Exhibit(s) 23−30 Plaintiffs' Depo Excerpts, # 8 Exhibit(s) 31−41 Plaintiffs' Depo Excerpts, # 9 Exhibit(s) 42−49 Plaintiffs' Depo Excerpts, # 10 Exhibit(s) 50−58 Plaintiffs' Depo Excerpts, # 11 Exhibit(s) 59−66 Plaintiffs' Depo Excerpts) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 51 of 59

02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011

331 Declaration of Kenneth Allen in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits 1−5) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
332 Declaration of Serapio Ayala in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
333 Declaration of Richard Berman in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Charles Lucas RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
334 Declaration of Mary Beth Carnicom in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
335 Declaration of Ashraf Eldomiatti in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
336 Declaration of Randy Fingarson in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 &2 Walseth/Roper RESJ Forms) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
337 Declaration of Win Giles in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Banda Herath RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 52 of 59

02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011

338 Declaration of John Ibele in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 &2 Coates/Lieberg RESJ Forms) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
339 Declaration of James Johannes in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Richard Kehrwald RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
340 Declaration of Lyle Johnson in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Mohammed Aslami RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
341 Declaration of Timo Kanning in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
342 Declaration of Brent King in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 12Rudd/Varghese RESJ Forms) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
343 Declaration of Chris Labbe in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 12Russick RESJ/Value−to−Salary Chart) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
344 Declaration of Louis Llamas in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Sam Marzullo

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 53 of 59

02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011

RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
345 Declaration of Timothy Madsen in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1−3 Raskob/Jackson/Grunwald RESJ Forms) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
346 Declaration of Joan Motsinger in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 12Goodnough/Volant RESJ Forms) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
347 Declaration of Robert Netzer in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
348 Declaration of Thomas Petersen in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 12Petersen/Hurd RESJ Forms) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
349 Declaration of James Phelps in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Rachel Harvey RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
350 Declaration of William B. Raspotnik in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Randy Oxley RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
351 Declaration of Humberto Rincon in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs'

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 54 of 59

02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011

Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
352 Declaration of Jeff Rootes in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 12McDaniel RESJ/Engelke Memo) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
353 Declaration of Pete Segar in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Performance Evaluation, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2 James Petersen Justification) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
354 Declaration of Jeff Shirley in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Ronald Dols RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
355 Declaration of Andrew van Reeuwijk in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Tedd Parske RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
356 Declaration of Peter Weyandt in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
357 Declaration of Barbie Estes in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
358 Declaration of Wayne Bernard in Support of 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr.,

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 55 of 59

02/01/2011
02/02/2011 02/08/2011 02/10/2011 02/10/2011
02/17/2011 02/17/2011 02/17/2011

Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for 1 Sang Kim RESJ Form) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERKS OFFICE ON 2/1/11. (Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 2/2/2011 (akl). (Entered: 02/01/2011)
359 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC re 353 Declaration in Support,, 345 Declaration in Support,, 354 Declaration in Support,, 348 Declaration in Support,, 331 Declaration in Support,, 352 Declaration in Support,, 350 Declaration in Support,, 343 Declaration in Support,, 333 Declaration in Support,, 339 Declaration in Support,, 338 Declaration in Support,, 346 Declaration in Support,, 330 Declaration in Support,,,, 337 Declaration in Support,, 349 Declaration in Support,, 358 Declaration in Support,, 342 Declaration in Support,, 344 Declaration in Support,, 336 Declaration in Support,, 340 Declaration in Support,, 355 Declaration in Support,, (Exhibits Filed Under Seal) (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
360 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY: Moot in part, granting in part, and denying in part 303 Motion to Compel. (See Order). Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 02/03/2011. (LMB) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
361 ORDER. Based on that review the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation dated December 28, 2010. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Invalidity of 2004 SIRP Releases 206 is GRANTED; and 2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding All Claims Asserted by Plaintiff Paul Calcagno 220 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 2/8/11. (GRR) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
362 OBJECTION to 326 Report and Recommendations filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
363 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 362 Objection to Report and Recommendations, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
364 OBJECTION To Discovery Ruling re 360 Order on Motion to Compel. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
365 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff re 364 Objection To Discovery Ruling on Plts Third Motion to Compel (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
366 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 56 of 59

02/18/2011 02/24/2011 03/01/2011 03/01/2011
03/01/2011

Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff re 364 Objection To Discovery Ruling. (Sarnoski, Dorene) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
367 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 2/18/11 Bertelson Email)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
368 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 362 Report and Recommendation filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
369 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
370 LR7.1 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase re 369 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
371 AFFIDAVIT of Beth Bertelson in OPPOSITION TO 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Aslami depo, # 2 Exhibit(s) Beck depo, # 3 Placeholder for 1−12, 14, 16−37, 39−64, 66−70, # 4 Exhibit(s) Calcagno depo, # 5 Exhibit(s) Chwialkowski depo, # 6 Exhibit(s) Coates depo, # 7 Exhibit(s) Davidson depo, # 8 Exhibit(s) Dawson depo, # 9 Exhibit(s) Dexheimer depo, # 10 Exhibit(s) Dols depo, # 11 Exhibit(s) Egan depo, # 12 Exhibit(s) Egbert depo, # 13 Exhibit(s) England depo, # 14 Exhibit(s) Estes depo, # 15 Exhibit(s) 13, # 16 Exhibit(s) 15, # 17 Exhibit(s) 65, # 18 Exhibit(s) 38, # 19 Exhibit(s) Gaba depo, # 20 Exhibit(s) Garg depo, # 21 Exhibit(s) Goodnough depo, # 22 Exhibit(s) Gordon depo, # 23 Exhibit(s) Grunwald depo, # 24 Exhibit(s) Guetersloh depo, # 25 Exhibit(s) Hall depo, # 26 Exhibit(s) Hanlon depo, # 27 Exhibit(s) Harvey depo, # 28 Exhibit(s) Herath depo, # 29 Exhibit(s) Hobbs depo, # 30 Exhibit(s) Hurd depo, # 31 Exhibit(s) Jackson depo, # 32 Exhibit(s) J. Peterson depo, # 33 Exhibit(s) Johnson depo, # 34 Exhibit(s) Keas depo, # 35 Exhibit(s) Kehrwald depo, # 36 Exhibit(s) Kenney depo, # 37 Exhibit(s) Kirk depo, # 38 Exhibit(s) Knutson depo, # 39 Exhibit(s) Kugler depo, # 40 Exhibit(s) Legut depo, # 41 Exhibit(s) Lieberg depo, # 42 Exhibit(s) Lucas depo, # 43 Exhibit(s) Malik depo, # 44 Exhibit(s) Marzullo depo, # 45 Exhibit(s) McDaniel depo, # 46 Exhibit(s) Mykkanen depo, # 47 Exhibit(s) Olson depo, # 48 Exhibit(s) Oxley depo, # 49 Exhibit(s) Parske depo, # 50 Exhibit(s) Paul depo, # 51 Exhibit(s) P. Peterson depo, # 52 Exhibit(s) Pope

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 57 of 59

03/03/2011 03/14/2011 03/15/2011
03/15/2011
03/21/2011 03/30/2011 04/21/2011 04/29/2011
06/21/2011

depo, # 53 Exhibit(s) Raskob depo, # 54 Exhibit(s) Roper depo, # 55 Exhibit(s) Rudd depo, # 56 Exhibit(s) Russick depo, # 57 Exhibit(s) Schaff depo, # 58 Exhibit(s) Schell depo, # 59 Exhibit(s) Stuchlik depo, # 60 Exhibit(s) Thomes depo, # 61 Exhibit(s) Topel depo, # 62 Exhibit(s) Varghese depo, # 63 Exhibit(s) Volant depo, # 64 Exhibit(s) Walseth depo, # 65 Exhibit(s) Walter depo, # 66 Exhibit(s) Watkins depo, # 67 Exhibit(s) Weyandt depo, # 68 Exhibit(s) Wickersham depo, # 69 Exhibit(s) Williams depo, # 70 Exhibit(s) Wrase depo)(Ostapowich, Andrea) SEALED DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/2/11. (KT) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
372 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to 362 Report and Recommendation filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
373 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Related to the Non−Preservation of Evidence is 267 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/14/11. (GRR) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
374 REPLY to Response to Motion re 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
375 Supplemental DECLARATION of Susan K. Fitzke in Support re 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1−7 − Deposition excerpts)(Fitzke, Susan) Modified on 3/15/2011 (kt). (Entered: 03/15/2011)
376 ORDER ON IN CAMERA DOCUMENT REVIEW: (See Order). Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 03/21/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
377 ORDER. Accordingly, the Order of Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan dated February 2, 2011 360 is AFFIRMED in all respects.(Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/30/11. (GRR) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
378 NOTICE to Attorneys: The hearing for Decertification scheduled before Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 4/29/11 shall begin at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 15E. (KMW) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
379 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Judge Michael J. Davis: Motion Hearing held on 4/29/2011 re 327 MOTION Decertification of Collective Action MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D. MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Plaintiffs' Disparate Impact Claim filed by Seagate, Seagate US LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. Motions were moved, argued and taken under advisement. Order to follow. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (KMW) (Entered: 04/29/2011)
380 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Mrkonich, Marko) (Entered: 06/21/2011)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 58 of 59

06/22/2011 06/27/2011
07/18/2011 07/29/2011 08/15/2011
08/17/2011 08/18/2011 08/25/2011 09/13/2011 09/15/2011 09/23/2011

381 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 06/22/2011)
382 ORDER re 380 381 Letters to District Judge. Defendant has filed a letter request for additional briefing on the dispositive motions currently under advisement with the Court based on the recent Supreme Court decision in theWal−Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al. case. This request is GRANTED. Each side shall file a fully briefed letter no more than 15 pages. Defendants brief shall be due by July 18, 2011 and Plaintiffs response brief shall be due by August 1, 2011. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 6/27/11. (KMW) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
383 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
384 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
385 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Motion for Decertification 327 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Only those Plaintiffs terminated through RIF may proceed as a collective action; 2. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in this Memorandum Opinion; and 3. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Disparate Impact Claim is GRANTED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 8/15/11. (GRR) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
386 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC. (Mrkonich, Marko) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
387 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
388 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE: You are hereby given notice that a status conference in the above captioned matter will be held on September 13, 2011, at 3:00 p.m., in Chambers 9E, United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 08/25/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
389 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 9/13/2011. Order to be issued. (lmb) (Entered: 09/14/2011)
390 AMENDED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 3/1/2012. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 09/15/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
391 ORDER/NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference will be held on November 14 &15, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in Chambers 9E, U.S. Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 09/23/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 09/23/2011)

CaSe: 0:07-cv-2502 As Of: 10/10/2012 07:22 PM CDT 59 of 59

09/29/2011 10/04/2011
10/07/2011 10/24/2011 10/24/2011 10/24/2011
10/25/2011
11/14/2011 11/15/2011 12/15/2011 01/24/2012
01/26/2012 01/27/2012

392 ORDER re Letters filed by parties on 8/17/11 and 8/18/11. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 9/28/11. (KMW) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
393 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Jane Thomes, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase . (Ostapowich, Andrea) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
394 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC . (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
395 STIPULATION of Substitution of a Party (Lee Walter) by all parties. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified text on 10/25/2011 (jz). (Entered: 10/24/2011)
396 STIPULATION of Substitution of a Party (Mark Olszewski) by all parties. (Ostapowich, Andrea) Modified on 10/25/2011 (jz). (Entered: 10/24/2011)
397 ORDER SUBSTITUTING PARTY: Based upon the Stipulation of all counsel [Docket No. 396], the Court hereby grants the parties request to substitute Paul Olszewski, personal representative of the estate of Mark Joseph Olszewski, for all surviving claims of Mark Joseph Olszewski. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 10/24/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
398 ORDER SUBSTITUTING PARTY: Based upon the Stipulation of all counsel [Docket No. 395], the Court hereby grants the parties request to substitute John R. Stoebner, as trustee of the bankruptcy case for Lee Walter and Beverly Walter, personal representative of the estate of Lee Walter, for all surviving claims of Lee Walter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 10/24/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
399 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 11/14/2011. Settlement discussions to continue on November 15, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. (lmb) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
400 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE held on 11/15/2011. SETTLEMENT REACHED. Terms stated on the record. (lmb) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
401 Minute Entry for TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held before Chief Mag. Judge Arthur J. Boylan on 12/15/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
402 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Paul Calcagno, Rebecca Chwialkowski, Gary Egbert, Narenda Garg, Luana Goodnough, William Grunwald, David Hurd, Rick Kehrwald, David Legut, Karen Lieberg, Charles Lucas, Daniel Michael McDaniel, David Olson, Paul Olszewski, James Peterson, Theresa Raskob, Thomas Schaff, Seagate, Seagate 4 LLC, Seagate Holdings, LLC, Seagate Software, Inc., Seagate Technology, Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate Technology, Inc., Seagate Technology, US, LLC, Seagate US LLC, John R. Stoebner, Jane Thomes, Keith Turnball, Susan Walseth, Lee Walter, Ronald Wrase. (Fitzke, Susan) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
403 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 1/26/12. (KMW) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
404 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil−8th Circuit Pre−Hearing Conference Notice, # 2 Civil Notice − appeal)(jz) (Entered: 01/27/2012)