Tabor v. Hilti, Inc. et al, No. 4:2009cv00189 - Document 75 (N.D. Okla. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 8/2/2010); granting 67 Motion to Supplement (jcm, Dpty Clk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA RONICA R. TABOR, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, and DACIA S. GRAY, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS, vs. HILTI, INC., a Domestic For Profit Business Corporation, and HILTI OF AMERICA, INC., a Foreign For Profit Business Corporation, DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 09-CV-189-GKF-FHM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff s Motion to Supplement Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. 67] is before the Court for decision. The motion seeks permission to supplement the Motion for Class Certification by re-filing an un-redacted Exhibit 1 under seal. Plaintiffs attached a photocopy of a disc containing the Hilti SAP Database as Exhibit 1 to their electronically filed Motion for Class Certification. [Dkt. 65-2]. Plaintiffs also provided a courtesy paper copy of their Motion for Class Certification for the Court s use and included an actual copy of the SAP Database disc. Since Plaintiffs cited to the SAP Database in the Motion for Class Certification, the undersigned assumes Plaintiffs expected the Court to access the database from the courtesy copy to determine if it supported Plaintiffs arguments. Hilti s response contends that there has been a massive violation of LCvR 5.3 by Plaintiffs filing with the Court a CD containing a large amount of personal information about Defendant s employees. Defendant contends the CD should be withdrawn from the record or sealed. Plaintiffs should not have included an actual copy of the SAP Database disc with the courtesy paper copy of their Motion for Class Certification. A courtesy copy should be an exact copy of what is filed electronically. Moreover, Plaintiffs should not expect the Court to search an electronic database to locate information cited by Plaintiffs. Finally, Plaintiffs attorneys should be more careful in their handling of the personal information on the SAP Database. Despite these failings by Plaintiffs attorneys, no disclosure of personal information has occurred. Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement Motion for Class Certification [Dkt. 67] is GRANTED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs counsel shall promptly retrieve the actual copy of the SAP Database disc from the undersigned s chambers. It has not been filed in the case, was not accessed by the Court and is not a part of the record in this case. 2. Plaintiffs may, by August 2, 2010, supplement their Motion for Class Certification by electronically filing those limited portions of the SAP Database necessary to support their Motion for Class Certification. If confidential or personal information must be included, Plaintiffs counsel shall comply with LCvR 5.3, LCvR 79.1 and G.O. 08-11. Plaintiffs may file the supplement under seal, if necessary. SO ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2010. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.