Saira Ghumman v. Boeing Intelligence & Analytics, Inc.

Civil Case No. SAG-23-03371 · United States District Court for the District of Maryland · December 10, 2025 · No. Civil Case No. SAG-23-03371; 1:23-cv-03371

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment based on the alleged signature defect in BI&A's answer.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's deposition transcript should be stricken because Defendant's pro hac vice counsel conducted the deposition without local counsel present.
  2. 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).
  3. Whether BI&A was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Title VII race- and color-discrimination claims.
  4. 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 PDF
Loading document…