United States District Court, D. Oregon
A. CRISPIN ASHLEY A. MARTIN CRISPIN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
A. BERG CODY E. SCHVANEVELDT ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
OPINION AND ORDER
J. BROWN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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
addition, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Maxwell was an agent of
Presidio who aided and abetted Presidio in violating
Plaintiff's rights under state law.
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.
March 2017 Defendants submitted to Plaintiff their first
Request for Production (RFP) of documents.
March 17, 2017, the Court set case-management deadlines,
including a deadline of July 28, 2017, to complete fact
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.
April 14, 2017, Defendants filed an Answer (#27) to the FAC
and asserted 12 Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's
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
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
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).
October 6, 2017, however, the parties again jointly requested
to extend the discovery deadline. Mot. (#39).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
January 25, 2018, the Court extended for the fifth time the
deadline to complete discovery to February 12, 2018. Order
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 ...