Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00657/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00657-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FAITH SIDLOW, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:14-cv-0657-TLN-SAB 

ORDER DENYING PLANTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY 

AND VACATING OCTOBER 28, 2015 

HEARING 

(ECF Nos. 55, 59, 60, 61) 

I. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiffs Faith Sidlow and Richard Nitido (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against 

Defendant Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging state law claims of retaliation and 

wrongful termination in violation of public policy in Fresno County Superior Court on April 1, 

2014. (ECF No. 1-1.) On May 2, 2014, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern District of 

California pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ third motion to compel additional discovery. 

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant laid them off as part of a reduction in force (“RIF”) under the 

guise of reducing costs and increasing profits. (Sec. Am. Complaint ¶¶ 11, 13, ECF No. 33.) 

Plaintiffs contend that the procedure used to select them for lay off as part of the RIF had an 

adverse impact on older workers. (Id.) 

Case 1:14-cv-00657-DAD-SAB Document 62 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

 In their first motion to compel, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant conducted RIFs at 

twenty-eight locations across the country and sought discovery to show that that Defendant had a 

facially neutral reduction in force policy that had an adverse impact on older workers. (ECF No. 

43.) Defendant objected to the requested discovery arguing that there is no nationwide RIF 

policy. Defendant presented declarations that they only provided each station with the financial 

goals that the individual station needed to meet. Defendant contends that all decisions on which 

employees will be affected by the RIF are made at the local level based on the individual station 

needs with no input from Defendant. 

 In the first motion to compel, Plaintiffs’ sought a copy of the RIF plans for the twentyseven other stations in which Defendant had conducted a RIF since 2011. (ECF No. 47 at 5.) 

The Court found that “Plaintiffs’ request for the RIF plans could potentially lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence and is sufficiently narrow to address Defendant’s contention that broad 

discovery of the RIF plans is unduly burdensome.” (Id.) Defendant was order to produce the RIF 

plans for the other stations at which a RIF was conducted from 2011 to the present. (Id. at 6.) 

 Defendant produced the RIF plans for seventeen stations outside of the Fresno market, 

but no RIF plans existed for eleven of the regions. (ECF No. 53 at 6.) The RIF plans that were 

produced did not include the information that Plaintiffs sought, so Plaintiffs filed a second 

motion to compel. In addressing the second motion to compel, the Court stated: 

In the prior order, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not shown that there was a 

nationwide policy that would provide for the expansive discovery that was requested. 

Accordingly, the Court required Defendant to produce the RIF documents to enable 

Plaintiffs to determine if such a policy existed. The Court ordered the discovery to 

allow Plaintiffs to show that there was a nationwide policy in implementing the RIFs. 

If Plaintiffs obtained such information, the Court would consider requiring the 

production of additional discovery for each of the areas. However, in making its order 

the Court did expect that the RIF policies produced would provide similar 

information to what was included in the RIF policy here, information regarding the 

age of the employees involved in the RIF. 

Although Plaintiffs argue that the information can be easily retrieved, the issue for the 

Court to decide here is whether the information is relevant in this action and therefore 

discoverable. In other words, does the information sought appear “reasonably 

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Plaintiff contends that the names and ages of the employees terminated in the RIFs in 

the twenty-eight regions and the names and ages of the employees hired after the 

RIFs are relevant to show that there was a disparate impact based on the RIFs. 

However, Plaintiffs cannot impose liability for a disparate impact claim solely 

Case 1:14-cv-00657-DAD-SAB Document 62 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

because there is a showing of statistically disparity. Texas Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. 

Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507, 2512 (2015). Such a 

claim fails unless the plaintiff can point to a policy of the defendant that is causing 

the disparity. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S.Ct. at 2512. A plaintiff must 

identify the specific employment practice that is being challenged. Nanayakkara v. 

California State Univ., Fullerton By & Through Bd. of Trustees of California State 

Univ., 60 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 1995).

(ECF No. 54 at 5.) 

 The Court found that Plaintiffs had not shown that there was a companywide RIF policy 

that would entitle them to the additional information that was sought. However the Court 

ordered Defendant to provide the name, job title, and date of birth of the employees that were 

laid off for all RIFs conducted between 2011 and the present so Plaintiffs could determine if 

there was evidence by which Plaintiffs could allege a companywide policy that adversely 

affected older employees. (Id.) The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to extend the discovery 

deadline without prejudice to be raised before Judge Nunley. (Id. at 8.) 

 Plaintiffs have now brought a third motion to compel production of the additional 

discovery regarding the RIFs that were conducted by Defendant. Having reviewed the moving 

papers, the Court finds that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local 

Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing set on October 28, 2015, will be 

vacated and the parties will not be required to appear at that time. 

II. 

DISCUSSION 

 Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ motion to be compelled should be denied as discovery 

in this action has closed and Plaintiffs did not seek to extend the discovery deadline as directed 

by this Court in the prior order. (ECF No. 59 at 13.) 

 On July 14, 2015, Plaintiffs served a second set of discovery requests on Defendant 

seeking the information on which this dispute is based. (Joint Statement re Discovery 

Disagreements 2, ECF No. 59.) Defendant’s response was served on the date that discovery 

closed in this action pursuant to the April 9, 2015 scheduling order. See Pretrial Scheduling 

Order 2, ECF No. 35 (“All discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be completed by 

August 17, 2015. In this context, ‘completed’ means that all discovery shall have been conducted so 

Case 1:14-cv-00657-DAD-SAB Document 62 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 

that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved 

by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been 

obeyed.”) (emphasis in original). 

 In the July 31, 2015 order partially granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Plaintiffs were 

advised that any request to extend discovery in this action must be raised before Judge Nunley. 

Plaintiff did not bring a motion to extend the discovery deadline before Judge Nunley or seek 

reconsideration of this Court’s order denying the request for the same discovery that is at issue 

here. See Local Rule 303(c). 

 Plaintiffs bring an untimely request to compel additional responses to discovery requests. 

Plaintiffs did not serve the requests for discovery with sufficient time for the Court to address 

any motion to compel which was specifically required by Judge Nunley’s scheduling order. 

(ECF No. 35 at 2.) 

 Discovery in this action has been closed since August 17, 2015. Plaintiffs were informed 

by this Court in the July 31, 2015 order that any motion to extend the discovery deadline must be 

raised before Judge Nunley. Plaintiffs had more than two weeks from the issuance of the July 

31, 2015 order to bring a motion to extend discovery in this action. Further, Plaintiffs were well 

aware that this discovery dispute existed when they received Defendant’s responses to the 

request for production on August 17, 2015 and have never addressed the discovery deadline with 

the district judge. Plaintiffs did not file the instant motion until September 21, 2015, more than 

one month after discovery in this action closed. 

 The parties in this action are represented by experienced counsel who should be well 

aware of the federal rules and the requirements set forth in the scheduling orders issued in this 

action. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is untimely and it shall be denied on 

that ground. 1

/ / / 

/ / / 

                                                            

1

 Since the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is untimely it declines to address the additional arguments 

raised in the joint statement. 

Case 1:14-cv-00657-DAD-SAB Document 62 Filed 10/26/15 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

5 

III. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The hearing set for October 28, 2015 is VACATED and the parties are not 

required to appear on that date; 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery filed September 21, 2015 is DENIED as 

untimely; and 

3. The Court will not consider any further motions to compel in this action absent an 

order by the District Judge reopening discovery in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 26, 2015 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00657-DAD-SAB Document 62 Filed 10/26/15 Page 5 of 5