Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Currin v. Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC

United States District Court, D. Oregon

October 4, 2018

ROBIN CURRIN, Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDIO NETWORKED SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, and KRISTINA MAXWELL, Defendants.

          CRAIG A. CRISPIN ASHLEY A. MARTIN CRISPIN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

          JOHN A. BERG CODY E. SCHVANEVELDT ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on the Motion (#88) of Defendants Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC, and Kristina Maxwell to Compel Discovery and Sanction Plaintiff, the separate Status Report (#91) filed by Defendants, and the separate Status Report (#92) filed by Plaintiff. Because the record is sufficiently developed to resolve these matters, the Court concludes oral argument is unnecessary.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part Defendants' Motion, imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants and orders counsel for both sides to show cause why the Court should not also sanction them for their repeated failures to cooperate to advance this matter within reasonable deadlines and to confer meaningfully on issues in dispute. The Court also sets further deadlines as specified herein.

         BACKGROUND

         On November 16, 2016, Plaintiff Robin Currin filed her Complaint (#1) against various Defendants in which she alleges employment claims for gender discrimination, retaliation, aiding and abetting, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and quantum meruit as a result of Defendant Presidio's termination of Plaintiff's employment. As part of her claims Plaintiff alleges Presidio wrongfully withheld from Plaintiff commission payments of over $72, 000 that Presidio owed Plaintiff at the time of her termination. Plaintiff also alleges she expected over $203, 000 in commissions from work completed but not yet paid and that Presidio intentionally terminated Plaintiff to avoid paying her these additional commissions.

         In addition, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Maxwell was an agent of Presidio who aided and abetted Presidio in violating Plaintiff's rights under state law.

         On January 17, 2017, Defendants filed their Answers (#8, #10) to Plaintiff's Complaint. On February 24, 2017, Defendants filed an Amended Answer (#17) to Plaintiff's Complaint.

         In March 2017 Defendants submitted to Plaintiff their first Request for Production (RFP) of documents.

         On March 17, 2017, the Court set case-management deadlines, including a deadline of July 28, 2017, to complete fact discovery.

         On March 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC)(#25) and asserted the same claims as those alleged in her original Complaint, but she removed all Defendants except Presidio and Maxwell.

         On April 14, 2017, Defendants filed an Answer (#27) to the FAC and asserted 12 Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's claims.

         On April 28, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Status Report (#28) regarding the status of discovery and indicated the parties might need an extension of the existing case-management deadlines.

         On May 4, 2017, the Court directed the parties “to file a single joint proposal setting forth the parties' positions regarding the requested extensions together with counsel's certification that the requested extensions are sufficient and that the parties will not seek additional extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.” Order (#29).

         On June 27, 2017, the parties filed a joint Motion (#34) to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and requested the Court to extend to October 30, 2017, the deadline to complete fact discovery. The Court granted the parties' request. Order (#35).

         On October 6, 2017, however, the parties again jointly requested to extend the discovery deadline. Mot. (#39).

         On October 11, 2017, the Court granted the parties' request and set December 29, 2017, as the new deadline to complete fact discovery. Order (#40). Nevertheless, on November 30, 2017, the parties jointly requested yet another extension of the discovery deadline. Mot. (#41).

         On December 7, 2017, the Court granted the parties' fourth request to extend the discovery deadline; set a deadline of January 29, 2018, to complete fact discovery; and again cautioned the parties that “[n]o further extensions will be granted except under extraordinary circumstances.” Order (#42).

         On January 16, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Status Report on Fact Discovery (#43) in which they stated:

The parties have diligently and cooperatively pursued discovery in this case and have been successful in avoiding discovery disputes. Between the parties, over 12, 593 pages of documents have been produced.

         The parties also noted they were pursuing mediation, that Defendants would seek to amend their Answer “to conform to the evidence” if the matter was not resolved, and that Plaintiff would request a brief extension of fact discovery to allow a different attorney to take the lead as counsel for Plaintiff.

         On January 23, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion (#44) for Leave to Amend Answer and Conduct Related Discovery. Defendants sought to amend their previous Answer to include additional affirmative defenses as well as a counterclaim against Plaintiff. Plaintiff opposed Defendant's request to add a counterclaim and simultaneously filed an Unopposed Motion (#47) to Extend Pretrial Deadlines based on the appointment of Plaintiff's lead counsel to the Multnomah County Circuit Court.

         On January 25, 2018, the Court extended for the fifth time the deadline to complete discovery to February 12, 2018. Order (#48).

         On March 7, 2018, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to amend their Answer, and, in light of the expansion of issues in Defendants' Amended Answer, the Court also extended for the sixth time the deadline to complete related discovery to June 29, 2018. Order (#58). In addition, the Court directed the parties to file on August 10, 2018, a joint status report and to indicate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.