EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown.

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM by Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP in Support of motion to compel 89 RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS, AND SUPPLEMENTATION OF DEFICIENT DISCOVERY RESPONSES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-M)(Murray, Lynn)

EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown.

Doc. 90 Att. 1

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 1 of 41

EXHIBIT A

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 2 of 41

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM~SSION

JulylT,2006 Hi,had Co.~y, Esq. C, ippo & Eld~ I~C

0208

I write to prov|d¢ EEOC's obj=t~ons to ~h¢ document subpo=nas d~rcctod ~o bei~ th= most comprchcosive of the thr==. It also appears th= the requ~s'~ con~alned in the other ~vo forw ar~ iaalud~d in ~h¢ form sent ¢0 &e class mc:mber~ identified above~ Thc~fore, [ w~ll rcfu ~o th,u comprrhcasive form Jn seU~ ~'o~h oar obj=tin,.s. O~ obj~ons individtra] re~, howewr, apply ~o all forms of the subpo~mas in whinh the r~u~

R~qu~ No. 4 - documents r~flc~g o~hip in~s~ in new law finn

REDACTED

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 3 of 41

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 4 of 41

EEOC objecr~ ~o th~ z~queb'z ~ ovexly broad ~ z~zo ~ame and Jn sco~. EEO~ will

EEOC object~ to th~ r~s~t on the ~d ~ar i~ is ~g~e ~d ov~ly ~a& For ~p]~ ~ ~ i[ wo~ld ~¢]u~ ~y and all d~ ~ ~n~h~o~ to

The~ sze some class membe~ whom inay have e~rne~ morn h ~u~t ~plo~t ~ ~ wuul~ ~ve ~ a~ S~dley ev~ if~e~ p~hip ~ had nol For ~ ~, we obj~t to p~u~ng ~e d~ ~ h ~ no$. 7, 8, ~d 10. We ~ll not ~ow for s~, ho~v~, wh~ ~ cl~ memb mum ~ sub~u~ emp]o~nt ~u3 Sidl~ p~v]~ ~OC ~ ~e value of~v

In add/don, we reserve the d~ht to m~ addldona] objcc~ons to the p~duczlon of do~ume~t~ on behalfofspec~fic indMduals. "~ le~e~ reflects ore" g~e~aI object~o~ only. S~n~:rely,

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 5 of 41

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 6 of 41

GRIPPO & ELDEhl LLC

July 28.2006 VIA FACSIMILE I.~,ur~e S. F, tkin UNITED STATES EQUAl. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street. Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Re: EEOC v. Sidlev Austin LI.P

Tbis responds to your letter of July 17. 2006. in which you set Ibrth a numbcr of ¯ "general objections" to the document requests Sidley makes in its subpoenas to the 32 putative claimants. A. Timeliness.

As an initial matter, your objections are untlmely. FederaI Rule o f Civil Pnoccdure45(c)t2)(B) requircsobjections within 14 days ofservice ofasubpoena. Wehave addressed your objections in delail below in the hope Ihat we can avoid litigating these issues. In Ihe cvcnl that you do not withdraw the objections, we re, erie the rlghl to assert Ihat the objeclions at~ waived. Similarly. your suggestion Ihal you c~rl asse~l additional objections is inconsistent wilh Rule 45.

As set forlh belo~v, your objections are without merit. Sidley's document riders ace nan'owly tailored to compel the pulative claimants to produce discoverable documents.

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 7 of 41

L~u~c Elkin July 28.2006 Page2 Request No. 2 - documents rcflecling compensation We rcjc¢( your suggestion thai Ibis requesl should be limited (o W-2"s and I Ogg's. Sid]¢y is ¢ndlled to discover each indivlduaI's income from al! sou~. ~s include, ~or example. ~n individual's shoe o~ ~ p~nc~hip's pmfi~, which is no( ~ll~cd on a W-2 or 1099 ~o~. In short, ~ individ~l's ~ rc~ ~11 ~fl~t all sourc~ o~income ~d is rc~on~b~y

Requesl No. 4 - documents reflecting ownership interest in new law finn Request No. I 0 - documcnls regarding terms and conditions of subsequent cznploymenz These requests are rc]gvant to ass~sing and caIcuJadng damage, ifany. In addhion, these rcquesta are relevant to a deIenninalion ofwhelhcr the puladvc cIalmants mitigated Ihcir alleged damages. Please produce these documents. Request No. 5 - documents regarding hours billed to clients in subsequent emp~oymcm Request No, 6 - documents reflecting revenues ganetated I?om bilgnga Request No. 7 - documcnta regarding business ganeraled or clients retained Requesl No. g - documenls regarding business dcvdopment efi'orta since leaving Sidlcy Request No. 9 - documenls regarding business dcvelopmcm efforts al Sidlcy The documenls sought in rcquesl numbers 5 through 9 bear-on Ihc putative claimants" job performance and, therefore, are reasonably calculated to lead Io admissible evidence regarding the b~sls for the change in status. Post-Sidley performance is also discoverable. Suhscquen', performance may p~ovide additional evidence ~o suppo~ Sidley's noadiscriminatory, performance-based reasons for its d¢clslons. At a minimum, such information may be used to rebut any argument ofpretext by Ihe EEOC. In addition, requeSts five through eight ~'e relevant to Ihe ~-sscssmem and calculation of damages and mitigation thereof, if any. Sidlcy disagrees that requcsta 8 and 9 arc vague. Sidiey is ¢ndded to all documents reflecting activity considered by the former Sidley p',u~ner to be business development. Thus. to add~s the ex~nple you provided in your Icttar. ira lbrmcr Sid/ey panner considered a clienl lunch to reflect a business development effort, those documcms arc discoverabIe.

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 8 of 41

l.auri¢ Elkin July 28. 2006 Page3 With respect to your litncframe objccllon to ~equrst number 9. $i~cy's produclion Io Ihe EEOC included all p~r~rmance-rclated documents ['or the putative claimants

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 9 of 41

Laurie Elhin ]tdy 28,2006 Page4 Sidley h~ recently provided you with the historic unit valuea. W~ disagree that you can withhold production of documcms for those individuals who may have earned marc during subsequent employnacnt than they would have al Sidlcy. As explained above. Ihcse documents arc dlreclly relevant to many issues in the liligadon and must ~ produced. Please le~ us know. however, il'th¢ EEOC will agree that it will no longer sock rellct'or present evidence concerning these individuals, ll'that is th¢ ~.~.s ¢. wc will revisit this issue.

withdraw your undmely general objections to Sidley's document subpoenas. I t~ould appreciate it if you would give mc the EEOC's posilion on these issues as soon ;is possible so that we can

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 10 of 41

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 11 of 41

Augu~ g, 2006 M~ch~l Conv,~'0 Esq. GSp~o & El~~ LLC II 1 S. W~ckcr Dr. Chic~go, IIIinois 60605

1 ~ite ia re~onse ~o your 3~ 2~, 2006 le~ r~g~:iing

om~oa for ~rk p~ ~m 3~ I, 2000 ~o R~ No. 4 - doc~cn~ ~cc~ o~p ~t~ PI~c ~ ~d p~d~ ~n for ~e ~t ~ ~ ~. We ~B ~d~ ~y ~pl~on ~d ~n ~u pin.de ~ ~d~ w~r to ~ by o~ oberon,

R~ No. 7 - do~ m~g b~ g~d ~ cl~m~ re~ s~cc I~ Sidl~

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 12 of 41

b~ca~e ~h~ may provid~ ~po~ for Si~'s ~ ~ for ~ ~ c[~ m~' ~adoa for do~ ~vi~ ~om ~ ~ SI~y, b~ ~e ~ ~n~ of~ r~ is ~ ~m. ~d~s who le~ Si~ ~ ~ rel~t ~ ~e ~afion of~ md ~on ~f. A~ p]~

Requ~ No. 12 - do~=~ ~g ~ t*~don ofpmo~ ~m Sid]~ ~u~t No. 14 - d~ gi~ to or r~dv~ ~m ~ ~OC Yo~ ~pfioa ~t EEOC ~ produ~ ~1 ~,

EEOC ~ll p~u~ ~s~vc d~en~ for #~ ~u~on ~m ~dMduds~o have ~ ~ =c~* of~~ For ~ cl~ m~ why ~vc ~ mo~ ~ mo~ back pay ~d ~fion ob~o~Iy ~ ~ot at

Sincerely,

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 13 of 41

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 14 of 41

GRIPPO & ELDEN LLC

August 16.2{1{16 Vi~ Elcclronie M:dl Laurie S. Elkln IJNI rEl~ S r^Tl:S EQL','.L EMPLOYMENT

Re:

El:.()C v. Sldle~ Aumin I~mwn & Wood

1 ~wile to request that die EEOC immedintcl.', cure deficiencies in its discovery responses. Aheroatlvcl.,.. ',re v.'o uld llke to schedule u meet and confer as soon as possiblc so v.c Tilt. EEOC's Rehtsal to Identify Sinfihtrly-Situatcd Individuals The I~EOC conlinues to claim that it can ncidzcr identity" polcntial c¢~mpamtom ilor exclude any pa~lllel~ as compar',ttors unli| addillunul disco~ cU." lakes phacc. The claim is p~rlicularly surprising in light of the lhct that. in ils Jul.v I.~. 2004 Notice of Dclcnnination. die EL:()C slated Ihal. after a four-year invcsligation. [he record showed IIi;11 cach and cvcry one of tl~e panners over 40 yea~s of.age ',vho ,.,.'ere downgraded or expelled there were mulliple other pataners, including younger p~tlners, who did not pcr/'onn as well but who ,.vcr~. not dov.ngmdcd or cxl',cllcd,"

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 15 of 41

wb~m* is able to re~ iew 1i~ Slalislies and inlbmlallon ,-t lid id~:nlil'y any younger indiv*luals whu Fed. R. Cir. P. 33 requires Ille EEOC Io pro*'ide its eurrenl knowledge al-~ml ~imilady-silllalcd indi~ iduals and ~ e ,~sk Iha! yotz do $o immediately. The F, EOC's R~[usa| To Provide I nformatlon On Dam:zg~s Or Mitigation (Sidlev's Second Set Of Izzt., Nos. 7 and 9).

l'lze EI~OC onz~nds zhaz i1 rcpresent~ 28 individuals, lnlbn'~afiou regarding their

Its EEOC does Ikll spccil~' ~s hich alleged faczs il believes suppo=~, zls liquidaled

D.

REDACTED

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 16 of 41

To summarize, tile EI~OC eanliot credibly claim Ihai il ¢iibcr lacks

I~EDACTED

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 17 of 41

EXHIBIT E

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 18 of 41

Augus~ 17. 2~0~ M~I= H. Soli~-Szuk~la, F~+ C-~l~ & E~dm LLC H ! S. Wack~ Dr. Chicago, IIHaois MHS Re'. D~ar M~le: I am i, ~ce'~p! of}our Augt~ 16. 2006 Ichor rcgmdlng KEOC's dL~co v~/ Although I ~m still mvlcw~ng your Jet~cr. a~ thLs dm¢ wc do plan on p~ovid~ng additional EEOC v. Sldlcy Au~fin. L~P.No. O~ C 020$

Laud~ S. EIkia

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 19 of 41

EXHIBIT F FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 20 of 41

EXHIBIT G

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 21 of 41

Citation 1/14/05 CHISON43 1/14/05 Chi. Sun-Times 43

Senrch Result

Rank(R) 2 of 2

Copyright (c) 2005 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 22 of 41

Page 1/14/05 CHISUN43 When Sidley fought EEOC subpoenas, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it had to comply. In a 2002 opinion by Judge Richard Poster, the court sa~d Eidley's "executive com~ttee" really ran things at the firm, so other partners could be considered employees. Corporate law firms are growing into legal giants -- often throu~hmergers -- in order to serve their multinational clients. In 2001, Chicago's Eidley & Austin merged with New York City's Brown& Wood. Today, the firm has 1,421 lawyers, according to ~merican Lawyer magazine. In 2003, it brought in revenues of $926 million, making it th~ country's fifth-largest firm by that measure. The emergence of large firms has driven m~ny of them to concentrate decisionmaking authority in a small group of partners. For that and other reasons, lawyers across the country will be~atchi~the Sidley case, which could lead to more discrimination suits against law firms. "It has the potential to be incredibly signific~t," said Kay Hoppe, president of CTedentia Inc., a legal recruiting and consulting firm. David Al~/IRichards was a partner in sidley's New York city office in 1999 when he learned the firmwas changing his status to senior counsel. The firm told h~m he could no longer participate in its partnership pension plan, and that he would work under an 18- month contract, renewable at the firm's discretion. "It's a pretty devastating blow. You give your entire life to a place. You don't screw anything up. And then you get told you're out, and it's all because of age," said R~chards. Richards, 59, is now the managing partner of the New York office of another law firm. He said Sidley kicked him and other partners out to make the firm more profitable and, therefore, an attractive merger candidate. The EEOC'S Suit seeks reinstatement of th~ booted partners, plus back pay for those kicked out. The average sidley partner makes $B95,~00 per year, according to the~mericanLawyer. And the ADEAprovides for double damages in cases of willful violation, Hendrickson said. Because the employees in question earned so ~ch, .It only takes two years of back pay before you're over a million doll~rs,, he sa~d. The suit also says Sidley's mandatoz-y r~tir~ment pol~cies ~olate the law. ¯ Except for certain classes of e~loy~e, the law prohibits a ~mndatory retirement age for workers, Eendrickson said. The EEOC seeks back pay and reinstatement for any Sidley partner forced to retire because of his or her age. In addition, the EEOC requested an injttnction to stop Sidley from discrintinating against lawyers over the age of 40. Sidley has other legal problems with the f~d~ral government. The IDternal Revenue Sea-vice is investigating its promotion of tax shelters that have since come into question. (C) 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. g.s. Govt.

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 23 of 41

.... INDEX REFER~CES ....

word Count: 862

(C) 2005 Thomson/West. No Cla~ to Orig. U.S. Go~t. Works.

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 24 of 41

EXHIBIT H

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 25 of 41

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOR'rUNITY COMMISSION

RECEIVED

ADEA Directed Investigation EEOC Charge No. 210-A0-3557 Sidley Austin Brown & Wood Bank One Pl~za 10 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Hlinols 60603 Paul Gmssman Paul, Hastings, Janofksky & Walker LLP 515 South Flower Street 2.5~' Floor Los ,~gclcs, Callfomin 90071-2228 DETERMINATION Under tha authorhy vested in mc by the Commfssion's Procedural Regulations, I issue ~c following Dctormination on tha merits of the subject oftha Directed Investigation under the Ag~ Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the "ADEA"), 29 U.S.C §621, ct seq. I have considered all of the evidence disclosed during the investigation. By letter dated July 5, 2000, I informed Respondent that the Commission was investigating Respondent in order to determine Ecspondent's compliance with the ADEA. I caused this matter ~o be assigned EEOC Ciu.~g¢ No. 210-A0-3557. The record oPthe investigation shows, ~'nong other things, that Ruspondcnt is one oftha worid's largest law firms with i~s principal o[fian in Chicago. In July 2000, when Respondent was informed of the invcstigatinn, Respondent conducted business and was known as "Sidley & Austin." In May 2001, Sidlcy & Austin merged with another law lirra which conducted business and ~vas known as "Brox~ & Wood." Respondant Sidley Austin Brown & Wood is the successor of Sidlcy & Austin. Prior to the merger, Sidl~y & Austin empinyed approximately 900 attorneys worldwide. The merged firm employs marc than 1,400 attorneys. Tha record also shows, among other things, that Respondent has been governed and controlled by two wholly sd f-pe~.oetuating committees, an Executive Committee and a Management Committc~. Tha Executive Committee, ~vhich includes all members oPtha Management P~cloF3 Respondent

Attorney for Respondent

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 26 of 41

Committee, hns appmximat¢'/y 35 members. Members oftha Executive and Management Committees control and make the decisions with respect to ¢vmy significant aspect of Raspoodent's business and operations and distribution of profits, and they concentrate the distribution oftha profits of Respondent in themselves. Although Respondent describes itself as a pestanrshlp, none of the "partnsrs" of Respondent except those on the Executive and Management Committee have ever been permltted to vote upon or consent to or reject the admission or cxpuIsion of partners, the allocation of profits, or the appointment of members of the Executive and Management Committ=cs. With the single exception of the recent m~rger, there has never been a t~rm-wide vote of all the parmcrs of Respondant. (Partners not on the Executive or Management Committees did vote on the merger ofSidley & Austin with Brown & Wood; that vote occurred atier Respondent r~elved notice ofthls investigation.) The record also shows, among other things, that in 1999 and 2000, in rcpested public statements and in an open letter to clients and others published on Rcspandcnt's'internet website, Rcepondent stated that it had utilized and was continuing tq utilize a mandatory retirement (which it was lowering) and associated a downgrading or cxpulslon ~£32 "partners"in October 1999 with their age. The rcanrd also shows, among other things, that all but one oftha 22 partners who were downgraded or expelled in 1999 wer~ in the protected age group under the ADEA, that most of them were more than 50 yearn old, and that the)'were among the oldest members of. their respcctlv¢ practice gmugs within Respondent. The record also sho~vs that for eseh and every one of the partners over 40 years of age who were down/varied or expelled thee wer~ multiple other partners, including youngsr partners, who did not perform as well but who were not downgraded or expelled. Th* foregoing is merely a brief summary of some parts of the investigative ix'coM. It does not constitute a summary of the whole investigativ~ rcanrd. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the ADEA and all requirements for cowrage have been met. I hav~ determined that the evidence obtained in the investigation establishes reasonable cause to bcli~w tb.e,t in maintaining and imp[~meming an ag~.base.d mandato~ rctixemant policy ~which may have been in ~ffect since 1978) Respondent has discdminated against a class of empIoyees on account ofthelr ag~ in vlolatioa ofth~ ADEA. Th~ class ofpcrzoas aggri*vcd includes " Respandest's employees who were adversely affected by th* mandatory retirement policy. I have also determined that the evidance obtained in the investigation establishes raasoanhle cause to halley Respondent has discriminated against a class of employees age 40 years and dldcr by downgrading or expelling them on account oftheir age in or about October 1999 in vlolatlon oftha ADEA.

Page

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 27 of 41

This determination is final. When tho Commission finds that violations have occurred, it att~np~s to eliminate unlawful cmploymanz practices bylnforma~, methods of conciliation. Therefore, I invite Respondent to join with the Commission in re.achlng a just resolufion of'thls matter, Disclosure ofinformation obtained by th~ Commission d~'ing the conciliation process will hc made only in acoordanco with tho Commission's Procedural Rcgulatians (29 CFR 1601.26). If the Respondent wishes to accopt this invitatior~ [o particlpale in conciliation e ffcirLs, it may do so at {his tlm~ by proposing t~rm~ for a conai[iatlan agreement; that proposal shanid b~ provided to the Commission r~re.senlaf~v¢ "~i~.h I ~ days of the date of this dct~raina'don. The remedies for violations of the stalules we cnforco are designed to make identified victims whole and to _ provide torte.clive and provcn~ive reli¢£ These remedies maylnclude an og~ocmant by Respondent to cease engaging in unlawful employment prac fices, placement ofidcnfified vicfims in the positions they would have held but for the discriminator, actions, back pay, r~storation of lost beaefiLs, liquidated damagez, injunctive r~licf, and notice to cmploycos of the violation and the re.solution of the claim.

conciliation terms it ~vould liko to propose, we encourage it to contact the assigned Commission repr~an|afive. Should ther~ be no respanso from the R~spoedent in 14 days, wemayconclndc that fuaher conciliation efforLs would be futile or non-productive.

"District Director

P~'gn 3 of 3

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 28 of 41

EXHIBIT I FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 29 of 41

EXHIBIT J

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 30 of 41

HEARING 7/13/2008 4:06:00 PM 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 Sidley EEOC TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES B. Z~GEL For the Plaintiff: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION BY: Deborah L. Hamilton Laude S, Elkin 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago Illinois 60661 For the Defendant: GRIPPO & ELDEN BY: Lynn H. Murray Maile Solis-Szukala 111 Sooth Wacker Drive Chicago Illinois 60606 vs, SIDLEY, AUSTIk BROWN & ) ) July 13, 2006 WOOD, L.L.P., Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) No. 05 CV 208

)
Defendants. ) 10:'~3 o'clock a.m.

Bfanca L Lara, CSR, RPR 239 South Dearborn Street Room 2504 Chicago, Illinois 60604 [phone]

Page 1

Case 1:05-cv-00208 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

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006 Page 31 of 41 HEARING 7113/2006 4:06:00 PM

can't supplement interrogatory responses later on and we think those rules of supplementation are sufficient to deal with this issue. MS. HAMILTON: Well, I think where we have an issue is that the individuals with personal knowledge were not the sole decisionmakers. It's our understanding that the decisions were made by the Management and Executive Committee as a whole. And, therefore, the fact that they may have talked to individuals that they think have the greatest personal knowledge doesn't relieve us of our concern that new reasons may come up when they speak with other Management and Executive Committee members. We would be satisfied if they say, "this is it, these are all the reasons," because then we know what we need to issue discovery about and we can start looking for appropriate comparators, but to say that they've spoken only with individuals with personal knowledge simply isn't sufficient. THE COURT: I think the best solution to this is to give the defense a date by which they can no longer supplement their grounds to justify their actions, subject of course to an interest of justice exception. That is, if something comes up that was not easily discoverable or is of unbelievable significance, 8

Sidley EEOC

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 32 of 41

HEARING 711312006 4:06:00 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I think that that might be covered by an interest of justi~ exception. It's a high thrashold. MS. ELKIN: Your Honor, if [ could just add as you're thinking about the time by which they can no longer supplement THE COURT: Right. MS. ELKIN: - this was an interrogatory that

9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 first. yet.

THE COURT: I'm not thinking about the time

MS. ELKIN: Okay. Fair enough. THE COURT: I want to get into something else

The thing I want to get to next, as [ regard as much more difficult, is what kind of decisional weight was given to vedous factors, There are two reasons I regard this as very difficult. First of all, this is an abiding issue that judges have dealt with for years, in the first plase construing statutes, giving a series of factors that must be considered. Sentencing is a classic example, Georgia-Pasif~c factors in damage cases are another example where they give you ten factors. No one tells you which is important and which isn't. When you have a group of judges and you ask them in e particular case how did you weigh this or that 9

Sidtey EEOC

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 33 of 41

HEARING 7/13/2006 4:06:00 PM they have that ability. I think they think that legally 2 they are preCluded from using it. And for this reason 3 it is unfair. And that argument has a little force to 4 me. That argument has a liifle force to me. And I'm 5 not going to ask Sidley to say, "that's fight, your 6 Honor," because I don't want them sitting on the record 7 and saying, "yes, Judge, we really want to beat the EEOC 8 over the head in the press." But the truth of the 9 matter is, they probably do have that capacity. I would 10 like to see them not use it, and I would not like to see 11 a just'~1"tcation far asing if or an incent'we for using 12 it, and there's one way to take that incentive away from 13 them end I've suggested it. 14 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if | could just make

15 the record dear. Sidley has consistently taken a 16 no-comment position in the press on issues relating to 17 this case. 18 MS. HAMILTON: And I'll just follow up on

19 saying one thing, and then we have another issue that 20 we'd like to address with you, which is that to the 21 extent Sidley feels their hands are tied, they are the 22 ones who were the strenuous promoters of confidentiality 23 and it was oat view that because of our public agency 24 role, we would try to keep as little confidential as 25 possible. So to the extent they feel their hands are Page 20

Sidley EEOC

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 34 of 41

HEARING 7113/2006 4:06:00 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ff 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tied, I think we view it the results of their own decision. MS. MURRAY: And we couldn't disagree more, your Honor, but we'll let it go at that. MS. HAMILTON: Okay. And the other issue is that because we won't be getting a full accounting of their reasons fram the Management and Executive Committee until after September 14th, | thin~ is the date, we do have the issue of depositions of our class members which we've been in discussions with counsel about when those are going to be scheduled. And I think we'd like the opportunity to have those depositions take place after we've been provided with tfte reasons so that we're able to communicate with our class members about what their reasons were and make sure that to the extent we need to, you know, get other issues about those same performance reasons on the record, that we have the opportunity to do so. THE COURT: "~at is the 8 weeks you're talking about? MS. HAMILTON: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MURRAY: We'd prefer not to have it wait that long, your Honor, but we understand the point. Page 21

S~IeyEEOC

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 35 of 41

EXHIBIT K

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 36 of 41

EXUIBITA DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED ]. All documenLs rela[ing In efforLs or allempLs to obtain Employment or Seif-

Employmenl between Oc[ober 1999 and lhc presen[, including, but no[ llmited [o, resume, cover

offc~ of employm~nl.

-I-

REDACTED

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 37 of 41

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 38 of 41

DEFINITIONS I. "Sidlcy" mcatls Sidley Austin LLP at~d all of its predecessors, ai'filiates, agems.

2.

"EEOC" m~ns the United States ~uat Employmcm Op~nunlty Commisslo~

and all o~ils ofl~ccs, a~liatcs. ~gcnts, officers, rep~scntativcs, and employees. 3, "Employmem" or"Sclf-EmpMymcnt,- thr pu~oscs of this subpoc~ only, means

result oFany Employment or S¢l~-EmpMymcnt draw kind, including, but not limited to, wages, fees, distribulions, accrual payment, dows, in-kind payments, severance

5.

"Documcnl" is defined as broadly as pemlittcd by Rule 34(a){I) o~lh~

Rules oFCivii Procedure and Ihus incMdcs every original, d~ft, and non-identical copy (which is diffc~nt From the original because of notations on such copy or othcmisc) of any tangible ~o~ o~ communicalion or means by which data are ~cordcd. including but not limited Io: notes:

witness statements: a~davlts; di~cs ~d calendar; repot; publications; photo~pbs; minutes

contact; bills; checks; receipts; and tape ~cordlngs, computer disks, film, videotape, ~d any

any kind by or through any means including, but not fimitcd to, s~cch (including m=ctings),

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 39 of 41

film of any lype or olhcr media o£any kind,

p~nain~ng ~o. con~nin~, d~scrlbln~, discussing, m~tioning, ~cmo~alizln~, cm~ying,

8. Rclb~nccs m d~c ~ln~ul~r include Ihe pIucal. ~nd rc~crcnc~ [o ~he plu~l include

9.

For any communi~don wilhhc/d on ~hc grounds o£privilcg¢, a~tomcy wor~

~on-prh,ilc~cd ~[~rm~ion ~s discussed durin~ ~d/or i~c[udcd i~z the commun{c~t{on,

-4-

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 40 of 41

EXHIBIT L FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 90-2

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 41 of 41

EXHIBIT M FILED UNDER SEAL