Langley v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING 58 Motion for Clarification Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (afd)

Case 1:18-cv-00443-LY Document 75 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JONATHAN LANGLEY
VS.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION

§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. A-18-CV-443-LY

ORDER
Before the Court is IBM’s Motion for Clarification of January 30, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 58)
as well as the response and reply.
Though styled as a motion for clarification, IBM is in fact seeking that the Court reconsider
and modify its order of January 30, 2019. IBM contends that the Court failed to understand IBM’s
organizational structure when it ordered IBM to search for and produce documents from the Hybrid
Cloud Group. Far from it. The Court fully understood what was presented at the hearing. Here is
the description IBM’s counsel’s provided the Court at the hearing:
[I]n brief, the organization that Mr. Langley was a part of was an organization headed
up by Steve Cowley. You’ll see his name referenced. It was called Cloud Sales Worldwide Top. It’s a fairly large organization of between 3- and 4-hundred
individuals, a sales organization within a group called the Hybrid Cloud Group, a
group being the highest level of organization, the broadest. There’s multiple groups
within IBM. We go from a group down to a unit down to an organization. And
Cowley’s organization was Cloud Sales - Worldwide Top, several, as I said, between
3- and 4-hundred individuals.
Dkt. No. 54 at 13-14. As can be seen, IBM made no mention of what, if any, “unit” was between
the Cloud Sales - Worldwide Top “organization,” and the Hybrid Cloud “Group.” Despite this, the
Court understood that there likely was a “unit” between the two entities. Notwithstanding that
understanding, the Court ordered that discovery take place at the level of the Hybrid Cloud Group,
as it concluded that this group—even though it was a level “higher” in the IBM hierarchy—was

Case 1:18-cv-00443-LY Document 75 Filed 04/10/19 Page 2 of 2

“roughly equivalent” to the entity Judge Abrams used for his proxy in the Iacono case. See Dkt. No.
52 at 3. In other words, it was not a mistake; it was intentional.
This being the case, there is nothing in need of clarification. And to the extent IBM is
requesting that the Court reconsider its ruling, that request is denied. Finally, the Court reminds IBM
of the “caveat” the Court added at the end of its order on the motion to compel, and suggests that
IBM re-read that paragraph and take it to heart. IBM’s internal structure is a creation of IBM. It is
only one of many factors the Court will consider in determining the scope of discovery. And because
the structure is a creation of IBM, the Court will look with a jaundiced eye at arguments suggesting
that discovery must somehow align with—and more importantly, be limited by—that structure.
Accordingly, IBM’s Motion for Clarification of January 30, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 58) is
DENIED.
SIGNED this 10th day of April, 2019.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2