National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp.
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
88 F.R.D. 272 (1980)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Susan Madison and members of the National Organization for Women, Farmington Valley Chapter, (NOW) (plaintiffs) sought class-action certification in their sex- and race-based employment-discrimination case against Sperry Rand Corp. (Sperry) (defendant). Pre-certification, NOW sought discovery from Sperry that potentially involved 300 Sperry facilities across the country and 35,000 Sperry employees and cost $3 million to produce. NOW argued that it needed such broad discovery to reveal a pattern of discrimination and allow the court to rule favorably on its motion to certify the class action. Sperry contested the discovery and argued that it was overly broad and burdensome and irrelevant to the class-certification issue. Sperry also argued that the requested discovery impermissibly intruded into privileged or confidential areas. NOW filed a motion to compel the discovery. Sperry filed a counter-motion to compel a complete list of NOW members, including the names, sex, race, current address, occupation, and current employer for all NOW members that it previously requested in its discovery. NOW objected on grounds that membership information was privileged and that Sperry would use it to harass its members.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clarie, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
