DLA Piper Wins Discovery Row in Attorney’s Pregnancy Bias Suit

DLA Piper LLP convinced a federal magistrate judge Tuesday it had adequately responded to a request by a former senior associate suing for alleged pregnancy discrimination for records relating to similar claims previously made by other employees.

The “demand letters” from two former employees have been produced and “are the only complaints at issue,” though it’s unclear that they even qualify as complaints, DLA Piper’s counsel Molly T. Senger of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP told the US District Court for the Southern District of New York during a status conference.

Those two employees never complained about discrimination while they were working for DLA Piper, so there are no other complaints to be produced relating to their allegations, Senger said.

Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky on May 24 ordered DLA Piper to turn over to plaintiff Anisha Mehta the demand letters and other documents relating to pregnancy bias claims.

Mehta told Tarnofsky she believed the letters provided didn’t satisfy the order.

Details, Probes Sought

The letters don’t provide the details of the two other workers’ allegations, Mehta’s counsel Monica Hincken of Wigdor LLP said.

The information provided just said those prior claims were settled, Hincken said. “We don’t know” what was alleged or what DLA Piper did to look into those workers’ complaints, she said.

The plaintiff wants more information, “but this is all there is,” Senger said. “We also produced insurance claim reports” relating to the demand letters. There’s nothing left to produce, she said.

Senger told Tarnofsky that DLA Piper didn’t undertake any investigation into either of the demand letters when they were received.

The firm had already investigated the circumstances of both of those employees’ terminations before receiving their demand letters and found that the terminations were justified, Senger said. There are no documents that haven’t been produced that include more detail of the two workers’ allegations, she said.

“You can’t produce what you don’t have,” the magistrate judge said, adding that Mehta wasn’t entitled to the details of the settlements.

No Talking Settlement

Tarnofsky asked counsel for both sides if they were interested in a referral to a mediator or a settlement conference.

Mehta is open to settlement discussions, but she already made a settlement offer and doesn’t want to bid against herself, Hincken said.

DLA Piper isn’t interested, Senger said. The firm is confident in its decision to terminate Mehta and looks forward to continuing to defend against her claims, including in a motion for summary judgment, the lawyer said.

Mehta sued the law firm in June 2023. She said her termination six days after submitting her maternity leave request showed DLA Piper only cared “about its bottom line” and the impact her pregnancy-related absence would have on her billable hours.

The case is before Judge Analisa Torres.

Joe Ruckert of Gibson Dunn also represented DLA Piper.

The case is Mehta v. DLA Piper LLP, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:23-cv-04757, discovery ruling 7/2/24.