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.

Stines v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

March 27, 2017

ERIN M. STINES, Plaintiff,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants.

          MINUTE ORDER

         The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

         (1) Plaintiff's motion to compel, docket no. 14, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

(i) As to Request for Production No. 3 requesting the “entire personnel file” of Henry Hamilton, plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot.
(ii) As to Request for Production No. 4, requesting the “entire payroll file” for Henry Hamilton, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall produce any “Transfer: Review” documents for Henry Hamilton. Except as granted, plaintiff's motion with respect to Request for Production No. 4 is DENIED. Defendant has produced a document showing the salaries, raises, and bonuses received by attorneys Henry Hamilton, Matthew Cleverly, and Daniel Womac that contains sufficient information for plaintiff to discern any discrepancies between their compensation and the compensation of similarly situated female employees. The “Payroll Professional” records likely contain social security numbers and financial institution information, as well as other sensitive personal information, such as contributions to a retirement or health savings account, which are both entitled to protection and unrelated to plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff has not shown that the “raw data” contained in these records has any relevance to her claim that she received less compensation because of her gender.
(iii) As to Request for Production No. 5, requesting the “entire personnel file” of Matthew Cleverly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot.
(iv) As to Request for Production No. 6, requesting the “entire payroll file” for Matthew Cleverly, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall produce any “Transfer: Review” documents for Matthew Cleverly. For the reasons discussed in section (ii) above, except as granted, plaintiff's motion with respect to Request for Production No. 6 is DENIED.
(v) As to Request for Production No. 7, requesting the “entire personnel file” for Dan Womac, plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot.
(vi) As to Request for Production No. 8, requesting the “entire payroll file” for Dan Womac, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall produce any “Transfer: Review” documents for Daniel Womac. For the reasons discussed in section (ii) above, except as granted, plaintiff's motion with respect to Request for Production No. 8 is DENIED.
(vii) As to Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 10, requesting the “entire” personnel and payroll files for Tom Larkin, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall produce Tom Larkin's personnel file and any “Transfer: Review” documents for the time period between September 20, 2010, when Mr. Larkin was hired, and May of 2011, when he was promoted to Managing Attorney. Defendants shall additionally provide to plaintiff, in a format similar to the one used in Exhibit A, docket no. 26, Mr. Larkin's annual salary and any bonus amounts and raises he received during the same time period. Except as granted, plaintiff's motion with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 10 is DENIED.
(viii) As to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12, requesting the “entire” personnel and payroll files for Janis White, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. “[E]vidence from non-party personnel files, such as the position, disciplinary records, wages, and promotion history of employees both inside and outside the protected class, has been held to constitute discoverable comparator evidence.” See Lauer v. Longevity Medical Clinic PLLC, No. C13-0860-JCC, 2014 WL 5471983, *5 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2014) (emphasis added). Defendants shall produce the personnel file and any “Transfer: Review” documents for Janis White. Defendants shall additionally provide to plaintiff, in a format similar to the one used in Exhibit A, docket no. 26, Ms. White's annual salary and any bonus amounts and raises she received during the time period plaintiff was employed by defendant Fidelity National Title Group, Inc. Except as granted, plaintiff's motion with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 is DENIED.
(ix) As to Requests for Production Nos. 13 and 14, requesting the “entire” personnel and payroll files for Mark Phelps, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall produce the personnel file and any “Transfer: Review” documents for Mr. Phelps for any time period(s) in which he served in the same Trial Counsel position as plaintiff. Defendants shall additionally provide to plaintiff, in a format similar to the one used in Exhibit A, docket no. 26, Mr. Phelps's annual salary and any bonus amounts and raises during the same time period(s). Except as granted, plaintiff's motion with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 13 and 14 is DENIED.
(x) As to Requests for Production Nos. 15 and 16, requesting the “entire” personnel and payroll files for Peter Wolff, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
(xi) As to Requests for Production Nos. 27 and 28, requesting the “entire” personnel and payroll files for Joe Tucker, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
(xii) As to Request for Production No. 29, requesting the “entire” personnel file for Melissa Mack, ...

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.