`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
