Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland resolves cross-motions for summary judgment in Saira Ghumman’s Title VII race and color discrimination action against Boeing Intelligence & Analytics, Inc. The court grants BI&A’s motion for summary judgment, denies Ghumman’s motion for summary judgment, and denies her motion to strike her deposition transcript. The court also declines to strike BI&A’s filings despite violations of the local rule governing pro hac vice counsel and local counsel signatures.
Holdings
- The deposition transcript should not be stricken. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) does not provide a vehicle for striking a deposition transcript, and the circumstances did not warrant exercising the court's inherent authority to strike the transcript.
- BI&A's filings would not be stricken, and the answer would not be treated as invalid or as admitting all allegations, despite violations of Local Rule 101.1(b)(i).
- BI&A was entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII, particularly the requirement that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment based on the alleged signature defect in BI&A's answer.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's deposition transcript should be stricken because Defendant's pro hac vice counsel conducted the deposition without local counsel present.
- Whether BI&A's filings should be stricken or its factual allegations deemed admitted because certain filings lacked the signature of local counsel required by Local Rule 101.1(b)(i).
- Whether BI&A was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Title VII race- and color-discrimination claims.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment based on her contention that BI&A's answer was invalid and that the allegations in her amended complaint were therefore admitted.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (21)
- E.E.O.C. v. MVM, Inc., No. TDC-17-2881, 2018 WL 1882715, at *5 (D. Md. Apr. 19, 2018)(followed)
- Anusie-Howard v. Todd, 920 F. Supp. 2d 623, 627 (D. Md. 2013), aff’d, 615 F. App’x 119 (4th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)(followed)
- Sciolino v. City of Newport News, 480 F.3d 642, 651 (4th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Mills v. United States, Crim. No. PJM 09-0468, 2012 WL 718839, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 5, 2012)(followed)
- Casey v. Geek Squad, 823 F. Supp. 2d 334, 348–52 (D. Md. 2011)(followed)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986)(followed)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986)(followed)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587–88 (1986)(followed)
- Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…