Sibley et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

Filing 731

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW- Show Cause Hearing set for 7/28/2017 at 09:00 AM in KC Courtroom 476 (KHV) before District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil. The parties shall file their show-cause submissions as follows: (1) initial show-cause cross submissions of no more than 25 pages are due on July 7, 2017; (2) cross-responses of no more than 20 pages are due on July 21, 2017; and (3) no replies are permitted. These deadlines will not be continued. Signed by District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 6/13/2017. (ydm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/14/2017: # 1 Exhibit C to Doc# 731) (ydm).

Download PDF
Prepared by the Technical Advisor on June 13, 2017  EX. C TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER REGARDING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW Exhibit C – Technical Advisor’s Identification from Experts’ Analyses of Class Members  Who Were Underpaid, Overpaid, and Correctly Paid  Experts’ Class Member Counts  Each expert produced with their 2015 expert reports calculation summary files listing the  computed under, over, or correct payments for each class member.    For BE, the produced summary file is “NKA1413025.xlsxs” which lists 32,941 employees.1 Counsel for plaintiffs produced a corrected version of this summary table on March 17, 2016.2     For Dr. Thornton, the produced summary file is SAS dataset “countsbyemp2015update.sas7bdat” which lists 30,392 employees.3  Table 1 summarizes the difference between BE and Dr. Thornton in total class member counts: Table 1 - Class Member Counts Difference Between BE and Thornton's Analysis Total Class Members Included in Dr. Thornton's Analysis Total Class Members Included in BE's Analysis 3,098 1,043 671 734 650 [4] Class Members Included by Thornton but not BE 30,392 32,941 [3] [3a] [3b] [3c] [3d]=[3]-[3a-c] Class Members Included by BE but not Dr. Thornton Class Members on ramp-up for only month in data Additional Class Members with only one month in data Class Members that worked only in an 'LA' store Class Members without current explanation for difference [1] [2] 549 References: [1] T hornton 2015 Report, pg. 5, fn. 10; "cnts2015update" SAS dataset. [2] BE 2016 Rebuttal Report, p. 34 (¶96) cites an employee count of 33,941, while BE's final underpayment dataset contains exactly 32,941 Class Members (Dkt. 626-3, NKA1413025.xlsx). The report count appears to be a typo. [3a] Class Members on ramp-up according to Dr. Thornton's ramp-up dataset ("rebutcomp.dta" in DAT A10). [3c] See NKA1413008,NKA1413010, NKA1413012, NKA1413014, NKA1413016, NKA1413018 datasets, employees with scid starting with the words "LA". Assumptions: [3b] T hese may correspond to employees with only partial months which Dr. T hornton excluded but BE kept. [3d] T his remaining unexplained difference could include, for example, Class Members who always have a negative "tearn" value in the Compensation Statement data and Class Members whose only commission calculation months resulted in extreme values (outliers identified and excluded by Dr. T hornton).  See, e.g., BE 2015 Report, ¶246, App. D.   See March 17, 2016 email from Alex Baggio to Elise M. Bloom and Nicole Eichberger, et. al.  3 See, e.g., Dr. Thornton’s “cnts4update” SAS program (see “DATA21\Programs”).  1 2 1  Prepared by the Technical Advisor on June 13, 2017  As shown in Table 1, the number of total class members included in BE’s analysis (32,941) is  different from the total included in Dr. Thornton’s analysis (30,392).  BE analyzes 3,098  employees not included in Dr. Thornton’s class member list, and Dr. Thornton analyzes 549  employees not included in BE’s.     Experts’ Counts of Class Members Underpaid, Overpaid, or Correctly Paid  BE calculated that out of 32,941 employees, 28,988 were underpaid, 3,498 were overpaid, and  455 were correctly paid. Dr. Thornton calculated that out of 30,392 employees, 29,746 were  overpaid, 629 were underpaid, and 17 were correctly paid. Table 2 presents this summary.    Table 2 - Experts' Counts of Class Members Overpaid, Underpaid, and Correctly Paid Total Class Size Overpaid Underpaid Correctly Paid Number of Class Members from Dr. Thornton's Analysis 30,392 29,746 629 17 Number of Class Members from BE’s Analysis 32,941 3,498 28,988 455     Requests from the Court   The Court has asked me to produce the following lists of class members under two approaches:  “Concession” and “Overlap”.    Concession:   For the 3,953 (=3,498+455 in Table 2) class members for whom BE calculated  overpayments or correct payments, produce the list as Exhibit A1;   For the 629 class members for whom Dr. Thornton calculated underpayments, produce  the list as Exhibit B1.    Under “Concession”, it may be that a subset of the 3,953 employees for whom BE calculated  overpayments or correct payments was not among those in Dr. Thornton’s class list of 30,392.   Similarly, it may be that a subset of the 629 employees for whom Dr. Thornton calculated  overpayments was not among those in BE’s class list of 32,941.    Overlap:   Identify the class members for whom both BE and Dr. Thornton calculated  overpayments or correct payments, produce this list as Exhibit A2;  2    Prepared by the Technical Advisor on June 13, 2017   Identify the class members for whom both BE and Dr. Thornton calculated  underpayments, produce this list as Exhibit B2.    Summary of Technical Advisor’s Findings  Table 3 - "Overlap" versus "Concession" Counts of Employees Total Class Size Overpaid Underpaid Correctly Paid Number of Class Members from Dr. Thornton's Analysis 30,392 29,746 629 17 Number of Class Members from BE’s Analysis 32,941 3,498 28,988 455 [4] Number of Class Members Underpaid According To Dr. Thornton's Calculation [5] Number of Class Members Overpaid or Correctly Paid According To BE [6] Overlap Number of Class Members Between [4] and [5] Overlap Approach Exhibit A2 Class Member Count = [1]+[3] Exhibit B2 Class Member Count = [2] Number of Overlap Class Members between Dr. Thornton and BE 29,843 2,572 [1] 537 [2] 2 [3] 629 3,953 64 2,574 537   Method Used By The Technical Advisor  BE’s summary file “NKA1413025.xlsx”:   Uses the corresponding unique employee identifier “UEID” created by BE4; and   Contains employee names;    Dr. Thornton’s summary file “countsbyemp2015update. sas7bdat”:   Uses an employee identifier originated from the data field “hdr_vc_empnum” found in  the Sprint data; and   Does not contain employee names.      In order to compare BE’s file with Dr. Thornton’s file to identify overlaps, an employee  identifier crosswalk file is needed to merge the two, given the different employee ID types  included in each summary file.     See, e.g., BE 2015 Report, ¶47.  4 3      Prepared by the Technical Advisor on June 13, 2017  The produced employee ID crosswalk file “beids.txt” lists the BE UEID identifiers and the  corresponding Sprint employee ID (“hdr_vc_empnum” aka “repid”5), the latter of which is  listed in Dr. Thornton’s damages summary file. The “beids.txt” employee ID crosswalk is a file  used and referenced by Dr. Thornton as part of an ID match for her 2016 rebuttal analysis where  she quantifies critiques/adjustments for BE’s analysis.6  As part of this analysis, Dr. Thornton  generates the “hdr_vc_empnum” employee ID variable and sets it equal to the “repid”  employee ID variable listed in the crosswalk file.    Merging the summary calculation data with the UEID‐repid crosswalk enables the assignment  of the employee names to Dr. Thornton’s calculation summary file.  Once the data is merged, it  can be determined whether both BE and Dr. Thornton computed an overpayment,  underpayment, or correct payment for each employee.    Attachment A outlines the information I have reviewed for the determination of using  “beids.txt” as a crosswalk to link the experts’ class member lists.7    I will produce Exhibits A1, B1, A2, and B2, along with the SAS program and loglst file, to the  Court, Special Master Cohen, and the parties’ Counsel and Experts.   See, e.g., Dr. Thornton’s “” STATA program, lines 7‐15 (see “DATA21\Programs”);  BE 2016 rebuttal report, ¶81.  6 See, e.g., Dr. Thornton 2016’s rebuttal report, ¶121, fn. 115, which references the STATA program  “”.  7 Exhibit B1 includes 28 class members not found BE’s class list and therefore the employees do not have  an assigned BE ID. Thus, for these individuals, the employee names are determined using the following  Dr. Thornton datasets: “ids.xlsx” (see DATA2); and “comp_s3.sas7bdat” (see DATA20\Data).  5 4      Prepared by the Technical Advisor on June 13, 2017  Attachment A – Information Reviewed    1) Employee ID crosswalk files: beids.txt; ids.xlsx; NKA1201436.xlsx   beids.txt  o File location: “DATA10\Data”  o Lists BE’s UEID (under heading “BEUEID”) and corresponding RepID (under  heading “Redpid (1)”)  o  File does not include employee names  NKA1201436.xlsx  o o File includes BE’s ID’s and corresponding RepID’s (and other ID’s)  o  File location: Appendix Docs for BE’s first expert report, dated 10.15.12  File does not include employee names    ids.xlsx  o File location: “DATA2”  o File includes various corresponding Sprint system ID’s  o File does include employee names  o File does not include BE’s ID’s    2) Locations of summary calculation files   NKA1413025  o  Appendix Docs for BE’s current report, dated 9.28.15  countsbyemp2015update.sas7bdat  o “DATA21\Data”  5   

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?