Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-04023_de52> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-04023_de52 RegisterActionDate "2018-05-23" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-04023_de52 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Plaintiffs' motion to compel 43 is granted in part and denied in part. In their motion, Plaintiffs seek to have Defendants supplement their responses to: (1) Plaintiffs' Interrogatory ("PINT") No. 9; and (2) Plaintiffs' Request to Produce ("PRTP") Nos. 2, 4, 8, and 13. Defendants oppose the motion. As for PRTP No. 8, the court agrees with Defendants and the motion is denied. The court's ruling, as correctly understood by Defendants, (R. 50, Defs.' Resp. at 9), was designed to limit the scope of No. 8 not only to the Northlake facility, but also to pertain only to those managers "who were engaged in or were accused/suspected /investigated for infractions similar to Plaintiffs' alleged infractions[,]" (R. 43-1, Pls.' Mot., Ex. 1 at 7), as noted by Plaintiffs in the parties' joint status report. Also, when discussing No. 8 during the February 1, 2018 hearing, the court made it clear that the personnel records to be turned over are for a subset of managers assigned to the Northlake facility. (Id., Ex. 3 at 15.) As for PINT No. 9 and PRTP Nos. 2, 4, and 13, the dispute centers around the issue of whether Defendants should be obligated to search for records from the Williamson facility going back to 2007 and beyond. Having reviewed the arguments, if the Code of Conduct provisions that were in effect at the Williamson facility in and before 2007 included provisions similar or identical to the provisions of Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s Code of Conduct Plaintiffs allegedly violated, then the circumstances surrounding the employment of Plant Manager Graham's family members may be relevant to this case. At the February 2018 hearing, the court did not suggest that Plaintiffs should be able to compare the decision making process engaged in by the managers above Graham at the Williamson facility with Graham's decision-making process under scrutiny here. Rather, the court found that Plaintiffs should be able to compare the decision-making process engaged in by Graham while he was at the Williamson facility and his actions in this case. (See id. at 14.) For example, suppose Graham was under the same obligation to report conflicts of interest but hired or caused the company to hire his family members without disclosing his familial ties. If this were true, this fact may undermine Graham's rationale that Plaintiffs' infraction was serious enough to warrant termination. While Defendants lay out a compelling case in their response to the motion that age and race had nothing to do with the termination decision, Plaintiffs are still entitled to pursue their theory that the reason for their termination was pretextual. This court cannot weigh the parties' evidence. For these reasons, the motion is granted as to PINT No. 9 and PRTP Nos. 2, 4, and 13. Defendants are directed to provide their supplemental responses, including the Code of Conduct that was in effect during the time Graham was in management at the Williamson facility, the personnel records of his family members, and the information they have decided to turn over, (R. 50, Defs.' Resp. at 3 n.4), by June 4, 2018. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 05/23/2018)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-04023_de52 AdministrativeID "51" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-04023_de52 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-04023_de52 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:17-cv-04023_de44 @default.