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

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.