Hornady et al v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC

Filing 344

Order ADOPTING IN PART, MODIFYING IN PART the 261 Report and Recommendations re 238 Motion for Sanctions. The Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED and Default shall be entered against defendant and in favor of plaintiffs on liability. The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike Defendant's 228 Answer. The following motions are TERMINATED: 277 Report and Recommendations re 233 MOTION to Strike, 245 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 316 MOTION for Reconsideration, 269 Consol idated MOTIONS to Strike (and Alternative Requests for Leave to File Substantive Briefs), 283 MOTION to Strike Defenses from Answer to Third Amended Complaint. A Hearing on Damages is set for 12/15/2021 10:00 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 4A, 155 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36602 Chief District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock. Signed by Chief District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock on 11/18/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (tgw

Download PDF
Appendix I Discovery Orders Document Comments Order No. 1 (9/4/2018) Initial Disclosures; FLSA Scheduling Order (Doc. 24) Parties filed Joint Motion to Set Aside (Doc. 47), which resulted in the Superseding Scheduling Order. Order No. 2 (10/25/2018) Superseding Scheduling Order (Doc. 64) Order No. 3 (4/8/2019) Phase I Scheduling Order (Doc. 91) Order No. 4 (7/12/2019) Order (Doc. 108) granting Plaintiffs First Motion to Compel (Doc. 96) Order No. 5 (8/29/2019) Second / Amended Phase I Scheduling Order (Doc. 137) Order No. 6 (12/16/2019) Order (Doc. 166) Granting in part; Denying part Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Compel (Doc. 160) Order (requiring Defendant to produce time and pay records in 1/3 increments and excel format) (Doc. 172) Defendant was ordered to produce “Excel Data file for each Plaintiff” showing time records and pay data prior to 10/31/18. Defendant was required to provide data for “additional Plaintiffs who choose to join this litigation. . . in a reasonable time.” (Doc. 64). Defendant responded with inaccurate and incomplete time and pay records. Defendant did not timely respond to the Initial Disclosures and First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Doc. 92). The Initial Disclosures sought, in part, information on Defendant’s time, pay and bonus methodology. The Requests for Production sought time and pay records, as well as data related to Defendant’s incentive plan. Defendant was ordered to serve the Plaintiffs with Initial Disclosures and complete responses to the Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production by July 26, 2019. Defendant sought additional time to comply, but did not comply. The Amended Phase I Scheduling Order was the result of a Joint Motion. (Doc. 132). Defendant agreed, and was ordered, to supplement pay records by September 6, 2019. Defendant did not comply. At the hearing, Defendant agreed, and was ordered, to supplement various categories of discovery. It did not. (See Doc. 170). Defendant did not comply. Defendant responded with spreadsheets in PDF format. The spreadsheets do not contain pay rates. Order No. 7 (1/21/2020) Order No. 8 (3/10/20) Order (requiring Defendant to produce incentive plan data) (Doc. 182) Defendant did not comply. Order No. 9 (5/8/2020) Phase II Scheduling Order (Doc. 201) Trial date and deadlines were adjusted at Defendant’s request. Defendant did not meet the discovery deadline, September 11, 2020. Order No. 10 (5/28/2020) Stipulated Discovery Order (Doc. 208) Defendant did not comply. Order No. 11 (6/29/2020) Order No. 12 (7/22/2020) Order granting Defendant’s Rule 56(d) Motion to Defer Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (to allow completion of discovery referenced in said Motion) (Doc. 221) Order denying Sanctions (to allow Defendant an opportunity to subpoena relevant information from ADP) (Doc. 229) Defendant did not conduct the discovery it requested in its Rule 56(d) Motion. Defendant misrepresented ADP’s response to the subpoena.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?