`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 118 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`STEVEN VANCE, et al.,
`
`CASE NO. C20-1082JLR
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Before the court are four motions: (1) Plaintiffs Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk’s
`
`motion for class certification (MCC (Dkt. # 70)); (2) Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s
`
`(“Microsoft”) motion for summary judgment (MSJ (Dkt. # 84)); (3) Plaintiffs’ Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion for additional discovery (56(d) Mot. (Dkt. # 107));
`
`and Microsoft’s motion to supplement the record on class certification (Supp. Mot. (Dkt.
`
`# 113)). The court has considered the motions, the parties’ submissions in support of and
`
`in opposition to the motions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law.
`
`The court also heard oral argument on Monday, February 7, 2022. (See 1/31/22 Min.
`
`ORDER - 1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 118 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Order (Dkt. # 115); 2/7/22 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 117).) Being fully advised, the court
`
`makes the following rulings:
`
`1.
`
`The court STRIKES Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 84)
`
`without prejudice to Microsoft renewing its motion after the parties complete the
`
`discovery ordered below;
`
`2.
`
`The court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`56(d) motion for additional discovery (Dkt. # 107) as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`Plaintiffs may take the depositions of Benjamin Skrainka, Samira
`
`Samadi, Jennifer Wortman Vaughn, Matthew M. Swann, Mustafa Kasap, Andy
`
`Bruncke, and Jeffrey Chirico (collectively, “the Microsoft Declarants”) and Dr.
`
`Michele Merler. Because Dr. Merler has already been deposed in relation to
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Dr. Merler’s deposition shall be focused
`
`on the issues raised by Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment;
`
`(b) Microsoft shall produce to Plaintiffs within 14 days after entry of
`
`this order all documents upon which the Microsoft Declarants relied in drafting
`
`their declarations in support of Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment (“the
`
`declarations”);
`
`
`
`(c) Microsoft shall identify to Plaintiffs within 14 days after entry of this
`
`order all non-attorney individuals with whom the Microsoft Declarants consulted
`
`in preparing the declarations;
`
`(d) Microsoft shall produce to Plaintiffs by no later than 30 days after
`
`entry of this order all non-privileged documents in its possession or control that
`
`ORDER - 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 118 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`were drafted, sent, received, or reviewed by the Microsoft Declarants that refer or
`
`relate to non-party International Business Machines Corporation’s (“IBM”)
`
`Diversity in Faces (“DiF”) Dataset;
`
`(e)
`
`The parties shall complete the above discovery by no later than
`
`Friday, April 29, 2022;
`
`(f)
`
`The court has not yet ruled on the additional discovery requested by
`
`Plaintiffs in their Rule 56(d) motion. If, after Plaintiffs complete their depositions
`
`of the Microsoft Declarants, additional discovery is necessary to oppose summary
`
`judgment, they may file a second Rule 56(d) motion specifically identifying that
`
`additional discovery by no later than Thursday, May 12, 2022; and
`
`(g)
`
`If Plaintiffs do not file a second Rule 56(d) motion, Microsoft shall
`
`file its renewed motion for summary judgment, if any, by no later than Thursday,
`
`May 12, 2022. The motion shall be noted in accordance with Local Rules W.D.
`
`Wash. LCR 7(d)(3). If Plaintiffs do file a second Rule 56(d) motion, the court will
`
`set a revised deadline for the motion for summary judgment based on its ruling on
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion.
`
`3.
`
`The court STRIKES Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (Dkt. # 70)
`
`without prejudice to Plaintiffs re-filing their motion after the court decides Microsoft’s
`
`motion for summary judgment. Because the motion for class certification has been
`
`stricken, the court DENIES Microsoft’s motion to supplement the class certification
`
`record (Dkt. # 113) as moot; and
`
`ORDER - 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 118 Filed 02/08/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request to waive the requirement
`
`set forth in Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 83.1(d)(2) that local counsel sign all motions
`
`and other documents filed with this court. The court reminds counsel, however, that local
`
`counsel must be prepared to handle this matter in the event pro hac vice counsel are
`
`unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court.
`
`Dated this 8th day of February, 2022.
`
`A
`
`JAMES L. ROBART
`United States District Judge
`
`ORDER - 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`