|
November 24, 2009 Court Decision Ordering Defendants to Produce Additional Documents
On July 27, 2009, Class Counsel filed a “motion to compel” asking the Court to order the defendants to turn over 20 categories of documents, including emails and other electronic documents, from Embarq, Sprint and their predecessor companies because they could be a source of relevant evidence in the case. The defendants had refused to produce these documents and opposed the motion. The Court, acting through Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, granted our motion in an Order dated November 24, 2009. The Order requires the defendants to produce all but one of the categories of documents by January 11, 2010.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Order dated November 24, 2009, click on the line below.
Last Update: November 25, 2009
|
September 24, 2009 Court Decision Allowing Plaintiffs to File Third Amended Complaint
On April 7, 2009, Class Counsel filed a motion to allow a Third Amended Complaint adding new plaintiffs and additional proposed class representatives. Although the defendants opposed this motion, the Court, acting through Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, granted the motion in a Memorandum and Order dated September 24, 2009.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Memorandum and Order dated September 24, 2009, click on the line below.
Last Update: November 10, 2009
|
August 25, 2009 Court Decision (1) Denying Defendants’ Motion to Postpone Class Certification Proceedings and (2) Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Postpone Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
On February 24, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to postpone the briefing and decision on the motions to certify the class action and collective action. The Court, acting through U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, denied this defense motion in a Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009.
On April 7, 2009, Class Counsel filed a motion asking the Court to postpone consideration of the defendants’ motion for partial “summary judgment” due to the fact that discovery of documents and information from the defendants was incomplete.
The Court, acting through U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to postpone summary judgment proceedings, and denied the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (without prejudice to its being re-filed later in the case), in the same Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009.
If you would like to review, download or print a copy of the Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2009, click on the line below.
Last Update: November 10, 2009
|
Scheduling Order Issued by Court on February 6, 2009
On February 6, 2009. the Court, acting through Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara, entered the initial Scheduling Order for this case. The Scheduling Order sets deadlines and due dates for various steps in the case before a trial occurs. The Scheduling Order sets the following main deadlines: (a) complete fact discovery (exchange and development of information) by January 29, 2010; (b) complete expert witness discovery by July 1, 2010; (c) file motions for summary judgment asking for a final ruling before trial on claims or issues by August 31, 2010; and (d) commencement of trial on March 1, 2011.
This is a complex case. The legal team determined that this schedule was necessary to afford adequate time to prepare the case for the retirees, who worked in many states over a long period of time.
To view, download, or print-out a copy of the Scheduling Order dated February 6, 2009, click on the line below.
|
|
December 2, 2008 Court Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
On December 2, 2008, Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil issued a Decision on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss certain claims in the case.
The decision allows most of the retirees’ claims to now proceed to discovery and possible trial.
Regarding the claims under the federal pension and benefits law, ERISA, the decision denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on their argument that the retirees had no legal basis to claim in Count One of the Amended Complaint that their benefits were protected. Reciting detailed allegations that the defendants described the benefits as lasting for life (pages 4-7), which must be assumed to be true at this stage of the case, the court ruled that the retirees’ allegations of lifetime benefits were adequate (pages 12-14) and concluded that “defendants have not shown that plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claim that they have a vested right” to the benefits (page 14). The court also ruled that the presence of boilerplate “reservation clauses” had to be considered in light of other company statements that the benefits would last until death (page 15). The defendants did not challenge the retirees’ alternative claim in Count Two that the companies misrepresented the benefits and this claim was not addressed in the December 2, 2008 ruling.
The court did grant the motion to dismiss a part of the claim in Count Three, for declaratory relief under the ERISA law, because it was duplicative of the claim to restore benefits in Count One (pages 16-19).
Regarding the age discrimination claims in Count Four, the court ruled that new, controversial regulations issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2007 were valid and exempted employer termination of medical and drug benefits based on a person’s Medicare eligibility from any claim under the federal age discrimination law, so the federal age discrimination claims relating to cut-off of medical and drug benefits were dismissed (pages 23-29). The ERISA claims about the medical and drug cutoffs remain in the case, however.
The court also ruled that the EEOC regulations did not apply to or affect the retirees’ federal age discrimination claims about the life insurance benefits, so those claims could proceed (page 22).
Finally, the court ruled that the defendants presented no basis to dismiss state law age discrimination claims in Counts Five through Seven under the laws of several states and also allowed these claims to proceed (page 29).
To view, download, or print-out a copy of the Opinion and Order dated December 2, 2008, click on the line below.
|
|
|