Opinion
Civil Action Nos. 98-4226-SAC, 98-4227-RDR
June 28, 2000.
William G. Haynes, Christina Collins and Clinton E. Patty, Frieden, Haynes Forbes, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff Willard D. Epling.
William G. Haynes and Clinton E. Patty, Frieden, Haynes Forbes, Topeka, KS, for plaintiff Paula K. Hladky.
Toni H. Blackwood, Kimberly A. Jones, Blackwell Sanders, and Peper Martin LLP, Kansas City, MO, for defendant UCB Films, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Renewed Motions to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, which have been filed in each of these cases (doc. 114 in both cases).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows a court to consolidate "any or all the matters in issue in the actions" if the actions involve a "common question of law or fact." The decision whether to consolidate such actions is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978). In exercising its discretion, the court should take into consideration whether judicial efficiency is best served by consolidation. Johnson v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas, No. 99-2407-JWL, 1999 WL 1096038, at *1 (D.Kan. Nov. 16, 1999); Fields v. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 95-4026-DES, 1996 WL 109536, at *1 (D.Kan. Feb. 7, 1996).
After reviewing the Parties' pleadings, the Court orders the cases consolidated for purposes of discovery. Plaintiffs are husband and wife who both claim that they were denied employment for Coating Operator positions in Defendant's Tecumseh, Kansas, facility on the basis of age. The facts giving rise to these lawsuits are substantially similar, and the causes of action (violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act) and the relief requested are virtually identical. While Plaintiff Paula Hladky initially brought a sex discrimination claim in addition to her age discrimination claims, the District Court has dismissed that sex discrimination claim.
Both cases were filed on the same date and have been subject to the same discovery and other pretrial deadlines. In addition, the Parties have, in many respects, conducted discovery jointly. They have also filed numerous discovery motions that are virtually identical and have asked the Court to make the same rulings regarding the scope of discovery in both cases. Administratively, it makes sense for the Court to consolidate the cases, at least for discovery purposes. Consolidation will also further the interests of judicial economy.
In light of the above, Defendant's Renewed Motions to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery (doc. 114 in both cases) are granted. Willard E. Epling v. UCB Films, Inc., No. 98-4226-SAC, shall be consolidated with Paula K. Hladky v. UCB Films, Inc., Case No. 98-4227-RDR, for purposes of discovery.
IT IS SO ORDERED.