Competing Summary Judgment Motions in Pay Disparity Case

This is a particularly interesting opinion resolving multiple competing summary judgment motions in an employment case against a county brought by a female doctor who discovered she was being paid less than a subsequently hired male doctor.  What makes this case interesting is that the EEOC filed suit against the county on behalf of the doctor, and then the EEOC, and the county filed cross motions for summary judgment against each other as well as against the doctor. 

Motions for extension of time to respond

One of the more annoying recent FRCP amendments moved section (f) of FRCP 56 to Section (d), so that the habit of referencing “56(f) motions” seeking an extension of the time to respond to a motion for summary judgment to obtain additional discovery must now be changed to reflect references to 56(d) – which of course no one yet recognizes as the same thing. (Law clerks don’t count).

Contested Rule 56(d) motions are actually fairly rare in practice since most motions are filed after the close of discovery, and where they are not, or additional discovery is still needed, parties frequently work out by agreement the time necessary to obtain the additional discovery. Which makes an order like this that pops the hood on 56(d) to tell us what arguments courts find persuasive particularly useful.

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Denied

Some of the most fun you can have in a courthouse is trying to enforce a settlement, or defend against one you didn’t think you had.  Unfortunately for legal scholars like you, dear reader, there are not a lot of cases that go to the mat hard enough on this issue of contract interpretation to generate a written opinion with tests and prongs and all that good stuff.

That’s why I was particularly interested to see this recent opinion affirming a magistrate judge’s recommendation that such a motion be denied.

Preliminary injunctions & seizure under the DTSA

Today appears to be former employee day, topped off with the first seizure order I’ve seen under the still relatively new Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), which is what we used to call UTSA, or TUTSA or TTSA back when it was common law or Texas statutory law.  In this case, a former employee is alleged to have taken the company’s trade secrets.  Judge Mazzant authorized seizure of a laptop belonging to the company in the employee’s possession, but the laptop couldn’t be found, which set the stage for the injunction proceeding as well as additional excitement for the defendants’ electronic devices.

… but her emails

You know those cases where an employee leaves the company and after being sued by the employee the company discovers that some things happened to documents relating to the claim?  This is one of those cases, and the aspect we’re looking at is the motion for sanctions arising out of the alleged destruction of documents alleged by be relevant to the claims by the former employee.