M.K. v. Tenet
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26668, 2002 WL 32128714, 216 F.R.D. 133 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Joinder of plaintiffs is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) when their claims arise from a defendant's common policy or pattern of conduct, as this constitutes a "series of transactions or occurrences" and presents common questions of law and fact, even if the underlying facts of each plaintiff's individual grievance are distinct.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
- Beginning in 1997, the plaintiffs allege the CIA engaged in a policy and practice of obstructing their efforts to obtain effective assistance of counsel for various employment-related matters.
- On September 4, 1998, the CIA issued a notice entitled 'Access to Agency Facilities, Information, and Personnel by Private Attorneys and Other Personal Representatives.'
- Plaintiffs allege this notice and associated practices deprived their counsel of access to official information, documents, policies, and regulations necessary to advise them on their employment disputes.
- The plaintiffs' individual employment disputes varied, including letters of reprimand (M.K.), ineligibility for foreign assignment (Conway), negative performance reviews (Mitford), and inaccurate information in personnel files (R.B. and Tilden).
- The plaintiffs also allege that the CIA willfully and intentionally failed to maintain accurate, timely, and complete records in their personnel, security, and medical files.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs M.K. and Evelyn M. Conway filed a class action complaint against the CIA and its director, George Tenet, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding four other individuals as plaintiffs.
- Two of the added plaintiffs were later voluntarily dismissed from the case without prejudice.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted in part and denied in part.
- Defendants then filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling, which the court again granted in part and denied in part.
- The remaining six plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, seeking to add nine new plaintiffs and 30 new defendants.
- In response, the defendants filed a motion to sever the claims of the six existing plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the claims of multiple plaintiffs, each arising from distinct employment disputes but all alleging a common policy by their employer of obstructing access to counsel, arise out of the same 'series of transactions or occurrences' and involve a 'common question of law or fact' sufficient to permit joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Urbina
Yes, joinder is proper. The court applied the two-prong test for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). First, it found that the defendants' alleged 'consistent pattern of... obstruction of security-cleared counsel' constituted a 'logically related' series of transactions or occurrences, even though the underlying employment grievances were factually distinct. The common thread was the single, overarching policy and practice aimed at denying the plaintiffs effective assistance of counsel. Second, the court identified several common questions of law and fact, including the legality of the defendants' September 4, 1998 notice and whether the defendants engaged in a common scheme or pattern of behavior that violated the plaintiffs' rights. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' shared claims under the Privacy Act further satisfied the commonality requirement. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and denied the defendants' motion to sever the claims.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the liberal standard for joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It establishes that a defendant's alleged common policy or systemic practice can serve as the 'series of transactions or occurrences' required for joinder under Rule 20(a), even when the individual plaintiffs' injuries arose from factually diverse circumstances. This interpretation is significant for plaintiffs in civil rights, employment, and class action litigation, as it allows them to join forces to challenge a single institutional policy rather than being forced to litigate their factually distinct claims separately. The ruling prioritizes judicial efficiency and the policy of resolving related disputes in a single action.
Unlock the full brief for M.K. v. Tenet