Opinion ID: 33422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiffs' Pending Motions

Text: 45 When the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' disparate treatment claim, two motions were pending: (1) a motion for sanctions, a default judgment, attorneys' fees and expenses, expert witness fees and a continuance, filed by the plaintiffs on June 5, 2002; and (2) a motion to strike exhibits to defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed by the plaintiffs on July 11, 2002. 46 The June 5, 2002, motion sought comparative wage data relating to the plan, as originally implemented in October 1998 and as revised in March 1999. It also sought to compel disclosure of any related fiscal and personnel discovery in accordance with the order of the magistrate judge granting the plaintiffs' motion to compel. Finally, the motion sought a continuance of the discovery period in order to allow the defendants to produce discovery materials previously requested and to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to further develop their case based on this new evidence. 47 The July 11, 2002, motion sought to strike certain exhibits from the defendants' motion for summary judgment, in part because as to certain of these data produced as exhibits, [t]he counsel for the Defendants [had] insisted that no such wage data existed, and these data's purported existence and importance were never provided to the Plaintiffs until it was utilized by an Expert for the Defense. 48 Curiously, the district court did not rule on these motions. Instead, in deciding to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the district court simply considered the evidence available to the plaintiffs at the time of their responsive briefing. After granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to the plaintiffs' disparate treatment claim, the court then disposed of the plaintiffs' pending motions by stating that [b]ecause the Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof for claims of disparate treatment under the ADEA, the other motions of Plaintiffs in opposition to the Motion of Defendant for Summary Judgment related to claims for disparate treatment are moot. 49 On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the dismissal of their disparate treatment claim was premature because they were not allowed to enforce their requests for discovery or to complete scheduled depositions that had been recessed when the plaintiffs learned that significant information had been willfully withheld from them. 50