Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Filing 246

ORDER denying as moot 194 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 197 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 199 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 205 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 210 Motion in Limine; granting 220 Motion for Sanctions. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge David S. Doty on 7/17/2023. (DLO)

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 20-1534(DSD/ECW)
Daniel’la Deering,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Lockheed Martin Corporation,
Defendant.

This matter is before the court upon the emergency motion for
the sanction of dismissal with prejudice.

Based on a review of

the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following
reasons, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND
This case has been contentiously litigated from the outset.
For the sake of brevity and given the limited factual basis on
which this motion is premised, the court will only repeat the facts
necessary to decide the motion.

A fuller recitation of the facts

relating to the case as a whole can be found in the court’s summary
judgment order.

See ECF No. 164.

Plaintiff Daniel’la Deering is an attorney who has worked for
many years as in-house counsel for various companies. This lawsuit
stems from her employment and eventual termination from defendant
Lockheed Martin Corporation.

In July 2020, Deering filed this

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 12

action against Lockheed Martin and two of her supervisors alleging
employment discrimination on the basis of race in violation of
federal and Minnesota law, retaliation in violation of federal and
Minnesota law, violation of the Equal Pay Act, aiding and abetting
discrimination,

defamation,

emotional distress.

and

ECF No. 1.

intentional

infliction

of

On defendants’ motion, the court

dismissed the Equal Pay Act, aiding and abetting, defamation, and
intentional infliction of emotional dismiss claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

ECF No. 46.

The parties

thereafter engaged in a settlement conference with the magistrate
judge, to no avail.
After much discovery-related motion practice, the parties
moved for summary judgment.

The court denied Deering’s motion and

granted Lockheed Martin’s motion in part, leaving the only the
retaliation claims for determination by a jury.

ECF No. 164.

Two

months later, on October 28, 2022, Deering’s lead counsel withdrew
from the case.

ECF No. 174.

Deering’s other counsel, William

Egan, who also represented her in this matter pre-suit, remained
on the case, as did another lawyer, Heidi Fessler. 1

Deering’s new

lead counsel, Kaarin Schaffer, filed a notice of appearance on
November 1, 2022.

ECF No. 176.

Soon thereafter, the magistrate

A fourth lawyer from Spokane, Washington also represented
Deering in some unknown capacity, but he has now withdrawn from
the case. See ECF No. 243.
1

2

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 12

judge held another settlement conference, during which the parties
again failed to reach agreement.

The court set the matter for a

jury trial to begin on June 26, 2023.
Even as the case neared trial, the parties continued to engage
in motion practice regarding the scope of trial and additional
discovery, among other issues.

The case was nevertheless on track

to be tried beginning on June 26, 2023.
Lockheed

Martin

filed

the

instant

On June 12, 2023, however,
emergency

motion

seeking

dismissal as a sanction for Deering’s alleged perjury under oath.
The court continued the trial in light of the motion and set the
matter for full briefing and a hearing, which the court held on
June 28, 2023. 2
The facts relevant to the motion are as follows.

In November

2020, Lockheed Martin served discovery requests on Deering asking
her to identify and provide any documents relating to her postLockheed Martin employment, including any positions she applied
for without receiving an offer.
A-B.

Jacobs Decl., ECF No. 222, Exs.

As is typical, the instructions to the requests state that

the requests are “continuing” such that Deering was required to
update her responses and document production if new and relevant
facts occurred during the case.

See id. Ex. A, at 4.

Deering’s counsel filed a motion for continuance of the
hearing to allow her to file a sur-reply and to replace existing
counsel. ECF No. 238. The court denied the motion at the hearing.
2

3

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 12

Deering timely responded to the initial discovery requests in
December 2020.

See id. Exs. C-D.

She disclosed information about

her then-current employment as a contract attorney for The Forum
Group and provided information about her search for employment.
See id.

Deering supplemented her discovery responses on August

20, 2021, and disclosed that she had taken a position as in-house
counsel with nVent, earning over $200,000 per year. 3
¶

17.

On

discovery

October

responses,

information.

29,
but

2021,
did

Deering
not

again

include

Jacobs Decl.

supplemented

updated

her

employment

Id.

Counsel for Lockheed Martin took Deering’s deposition on
November 1, 2021, just three days after her last supplement.
Deering testified that she was currently employed by nVent and
that she had not looked for alternative employment since she
started at nVent in February 2021:
Q. Are there any efforts beyond December of 2020
that you’ve made to secure other employment that are
not in this document?
A. Not that I’m aware of.
It’s exhausting and
disheartening to keep applying for jobs and not
getting anything.
Q. Right. Is that the reason why you haven’t applied
for any positions after December 2020?
A. I don’t know if I - I’ll need to update that if
I have. I’ll have to check. I may have submitted a
Lockheed Martin independently learned of
employment with nVent via social media in April 2021.
Decl., ECF No. 237, ¶ 10.
3

4

Deering’s
2d Jacobs

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 5 of 12

couple applications, but not many. I didn’t start
my job with nVent until February 2021, so we’ll need
to update that.
Q. Have you applied - have you looked for any
alternative employment while you’ve been working for
nVent?
A. No.
Q. So you may have applied to a few jobs between the
end of December and February of 2021, but you haven’t
done any since. Is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Deering Dep. at 161:23-62:18. 4

Deering continued to supplement

her discovery responses after her deposition, but did not update
her employment status.

Jacobs Decl. ¶¶ 18-19.

Deering’s deposition testimony on this point was false.

In

fact, Deering had accepted an offer from Anaplan, Inc. on October
12, 2021 – three weeks before her deposition.

Id. Ex. G.

Her

employment with Anaplan commenced on November 8, 2021, just one
week after her deposition.

Id.

It is undisputed that Deering’s

position at Anaplan earned her notably more in salary and benefits
than her position with nVent.

Deering suggests that she was being “grilled” by defense
counsel during her deposition, which may have caused her to
unknowingly make misstatements.
The court has viewed relevant
portions of the videotaped deposition and disagrees that counsel’s
questions were in any way inappropriate or harsh or that Deering
seemed confused or out of sorts. She answered questions calmly
and without any apparent confusion or undue stress. At no time
did she attempt to correct her testimony, including in the errata
sheet.
4

5

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 6 of 12

It is also now known that Deering was not still employed with
nVent at the time of her deposition.

Her last day of employment

with nVent was, in fact, October 22, 2021 – ten days before her
deposition. 2d Jacobs Decl. Ex. A. Despite this uncontested fact,
Deering testified falsely in her deposition as follows:
Q.

Where are you currently employed?

A.

nVent.

Deering

Dep.

at

9:13-14. 5

She

explained

her

duties

and

responsibilities at nVent as if it were her current and ongoing
role.

See id. at 9:20-11:10.

Deering signed an errata sheet after the deposition, but
failed to correct the record in any respect, let alone the false
testimony about her employment.

2d Jacobs Decl. Ex. F.

On May 25, 2023, Deering updated her Rule 26 disclosures
regarding her alleged economic damages.

Id. Ex. H.

In the update,

she disclosed that her income in 2021 was $196,281.

Id. at 2.

In

fact, that year Deering earned $342,839 due to her new - and still
undisclosed - employment at Anaplan.

See id. Ex. I.

Her claimed

damages with respect to 2022 were similarly inaccurate.

In her

updated Rule 26 disclosures, Deering stated that her income in

At the hearing, counsel for Deering explained that Deering
thought she was technically on paid vacation from nVent at the
time of her deposition, which led her to testify as she did. Not
only is that explanation belied by the record, 2d Jacobs Decl. Ex.
A, it is devoid of credibility given the broader context.
5

6

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 7 of 12

2022 was $260,866, id. Ex. H, when it was in fact $452,214.40, id.
Ex. J.
As

trial

rapidly

approached,

Lockheed

Martin

was

still

unaware of Deering’s employment with Anaplan and her increased
income.

The

truth

came

to

light

during

trial

preparation.

Consistent with the court’s pre-trial order, the parties exchanged
exhibit lists on June 5, 2023.
documents.

Id. Ex. K.

Deering’s list included forty-nine

Two days later, however, Deering sent her

exhibits to Lockheed Martin for inspection and included a fiftieth
exhibit.

Id. Ex. L.

form from Anaplan.

That exhibit included Deering’s 2022 W-2

Id. Ex. J.

So, although Deering had worked

for Anaplan since November 2021, she did not disclose that fact to
Lockheed Martin or the court until the eve of trial – nineteen
months later.

Likely anticipating this motion, Deering provided

new damages calculations and a mitigation summary to Lockheed
Martin, explaining that she had erred in previous calculations.
Id. Exs. N, O.

It is questionable whether the new calculations

are accurate given the information we all now know.

In any event,

these facts led Lockheed Martin to file the instant motion.
Not only did Deering make false statements under oath in
discovery, she also did so directly to the court.
Deering

provided

her

resume

as

part

of

her

In March 2022,
declaration

opposition to Lockheed Martin’s motion for summary judgment.
ECF No. 153.

in
See

Despite having worked at Anaplan for approximately
7

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 8 of 12

five months, her resume makes no mention of Anaplan and instead
states that she presently works at nVent.
Additionally,

neither

of

her

two

Id. at 10.
confidential

settlement

letters to the magistrate judge, which the court has reviewed in
camera, mention her employment with Anaplan.

The first letter was

submitted by Deering’s first lead counsel on January 13, 2022, two
months after she began working for Anaplan.

The second letter,

dated November 3, 2022, was submitted by Ms. Schaffer – and drafted
in part by Mr. Egan - almost one year after Deering began working
for Anaplan.

The second letter specifically references nVent as

Deering’s current employer and uses her salary and benefits at
nVent as a basis for her damages calculation.

Again, there is no

dispute that Anaplan paid Deering more in salary and benefits than
nVent, which, if disclosed, would reduce her damages if she were
to prevail at trial.

DISCUSSION
I.

Dismissal
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically

provides for the sanction of dismissal in the case of discovery
abuses,

such

as

37(b)(2)(A)(v).

those

here.

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

37(c)(1)(C),

Moreover, “[t]he court has ‘inherent authority to

dismiss a lawsuit as a sanction for significant abuse of the
judicial process.’”

Thoms v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 03-cv-2465,
8

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 9 of 12

2003 WL 22901686, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2003) (citing Martin v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding
that “[w]hen a litigant’s conduct abuses the judicial process,
dismissal of a lawsuit is a remedy within the inherent power of
the court”); Knapp v. Convergys Corp., 209 F.R.D. 439, 442 (E.D.
Mo. 2002) (noting that “the court’s authority to sanction [parties]
for ... discovery abuse flows from its inherent power to manage
its own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases, including fashioning an appropriate sanction
for conduct which abuses the judicial process”)); see also Pope v.
Fed. Express Corp., 974 F.2d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 1992) (“When a
litigant’s conduct abuses the judicial process, ... dismissal of
a lawsuit [is] a remedy within the inherent power of the court.”).
“A court should not use dismissal as a sanction unless the
court is able to find, by clear and convincing evidence, both (1)
that the misconduct occurred, and (2) that a lesser sanction would
not sufficiently punish and deter the abusive conduct.”

Thoms,

2003 WL 22901686, at *1.
There is no doubt that Deering engaged in misconduct.

As set

forth in detail above, she – directly and indirectly through her
counsel

–

lied

to

Lockheed

Martin

employment and thus her damages.

and

the

court

about

her

She did so for nineteen months.

And she did so under oath, making the lies “a direct affront to
the court.”

Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 186 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8th
9

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 10 of 12

1999).

Nothing she or her counsel have said in response to this

motion have persuaded the court to reach a different conclusion.
She was asked clear questions about her employment orally and in
writing and she repeatedly lied in response while under oath.

She

presented false information to the court in settlement conferences
and on summary judgment.

The fact that she is a lawyer makes her

conduct all the more concerning.
The court recognizes that dismissal is “an extreme sanction”
to be “used sparingly,” Thoms, 2003 WL 22901686, at *1, but it is
appropriate under these circumstances.

Even if Deering is not

under a more stringent obligation as a litigant given that she is
a lawyer, the court finds her misconduct, in light of her legal
education and experience, extremely troubling.

It shows that her

conduct was intentional, willful, and in bad faith.

See Boogaerts

v. Bank of Bradley, 961 F.2d 765, 768 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding
that dismissal is warranted when a party’s conduct was “in bad
faith or deliberately intentional or willful”).

A lesser sanction

would provide no more than a slap on the wrist.

The court is

tasked with punishing the misconduct and deterring such behavior
in the future.

Given the gravity of Deering’s misconduct and the

fact that it was ongoing throughout most of this litigation, a
lighter sanction simply will not suffice.

The court takes no

pleasure in coming to this conclusion, but it must do so given the
facts.

This case will be dismissed with prejudice.
10

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 11 of 12

II.

Counsel
In addition to Deering’s misconduct, Mr. Egan and Ms. Schaffer

have admittedly given false information to the court in violation
of their duties of candor and professionalism.

In the November 3,

2022,

magistrate

settlement

conference

letter

to

the

judge,

authored by both Mr. Egan and Ms. Schaffer and signed by Ms.
Schaffer, they failed to note Deering’s employment with Anaplan
and her higher income.
the

case

and

were

Those facts were undeniably material to

relevant,

in

particular,

for

purposes

of

negotiating a possible settlement.
In his in camera submission providing the settlement letters
to the court, Mr. Egan admitted that he was aware of Deering’s
employment at Anaplan and her current salary and benefits.

He

also admitted, however, that he failed to include that information
in the letter.

He explained that the omission was an “oversight.”

At the hearing, Ms. Schaffer likewise acknowledged that she was
aware of Deering’s employment with Anaplan before she submitted
the letter, but nevertheless failed to disclose that fact to the
court.

Even if it was simply an oversight rather than an attempt

to mislead, the court is unsettled by such carelessness.

As a

result, the court will forward this order to the Minnesota Office
of

Lawyers

Professional

Responsibility

for

any

investigation

and/or action it may wish to take regarding the conduct of Deering
and her lawyers Mr. Egan and Ms. Schaffer.
11

CASE 0:20-cv-01534-DSD-ECW Doc. 246 Filed 07/17/23 Page 12 of 12

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The emergency motion for sanctions of dismissal with

prejudice [ECF No. 220] is granted;
2.

The case is dismissed with prejudice; and

3.

The trial-related motions [ECF Nos. 194, 197, 199, 205,

210] are denied as moot.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: July 17, 2023

s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

12