Apsley et al v. Boeing Company, The et al

Filing 476

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice 468 Defendants' Motion to Sever. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Humphreys on 7/15/2013. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PERRY APSLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY and SPIRIT
AEROSYSTEMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 05-1368-EFM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to sever the individual
ADEA disparate treatment claims of 87 named plaintiffs represented by Lawrence
Williamson, Jr.

(Doc. 468).

In accordance with this court’s previous order (Doc. 475), on May 22, 2013, the
parties provided a written report encompassing counsel’s views on remaining discovery
issues, the methods by which the parties plan to pursue discovery, and a suggested
schedule for completion.

Based on that report, it appears that the parties have

communicated effectively regarding case management, despite their acknowledgement
that they continue to disagree on whether severance of plaintiffs’ claims is appropriate.

Severance is discretionary under Fed.R.Civ.P. 21.1 Rule 21 should be read in
conjunction with Fed.R.Civ.P. 42 permitting consolidation of cases. 2

Unlike the

previously severed parties, the remaining 87 plaintiffs share common legal counsel, and
the parties have worked together to formulate a workable discovery plan.

Proceeding in

this fashion will expedite case management and avoid needless duplication of efforts and
additional expenses. For ease of discovery, and administrative and case management
purposes, the defendants’ motion is denied without prejudice to future re-filing.3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants= motion (Doc. 468) to sever the
87 plaintiffs= remaining individual ADEA claims is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 15th day of July 2013.

S/ Karen M. Humphreys
KAREN M. HUMPHREYS
United States Magistrate Judge

1

See, e.g., Wagoner v. Pfizer, Inc., 07-1229-JTM, 2008 WL 2937249 (D. Kan. July 24,
2008)(citing K–B Trucking Co. v. Riss Int'l Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1153 (10th Cir.1985)).
2
See Biglow v. Boeing Co., 201 F.R.D. 519, 521 (D. Kan. July 3, 2001.)
3
See Wagoner v. Pfizer, Inc., 07-1229-JTM, 2008 WL 2937249 (D. Kan. July 24, 2008) (noting,
“The parties may raise this issue in connection with the final pretrial conference, an approach
other courts have adopted.”)(citing e.g., Spring Comm. v. Theglobe.com, Inc ., 233 F.R.D. 615,
618 (D.Kan.2006)).