Case: Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell (1976) [App.

67-69]

Facts: 2 female lawyers brought this suit against a law firm, Sullivan &
Cromwell, for sexual discrimination practices in hiring associates. During
discovery, P requested info on D's partner selection criteria. Rule of Law: A P
may not sue for injuries that he or she has not suffered, and he or she may not
sue on behalf of a class of which she is not a member. P, therefore, cannot
represent a class of people who may be aggrieved b/c of D's partner selection
criteria. D said this material is irrelevant and is thus not discoverable, b/c P
has not alleged that she was denied partnership due to her sex, but only the job
as an associate, so she is not entitled to her discover request.

Issue: Whether the issue of a firm's partner selection criteria is relevant to a

female candidate's claim that she was not hired as an associate b/c of sexual
discrimination. - Yes.

Reasoning: Rule 26 - a party is entitled to discovery of information which

"appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Court says that the information about the law firm's partner selection criteria
could show D's labor hierarchy, which may be reflective of restrictive or
exclusionary hiring practices within the contemplation of the statute. Court does
not agree with D that this information is no relevant to P's claim.

Notes

• Claim - discriminating against female lawyers in being hired as associates

• Requested - info about promotion to partner
○ How is this relevant?
§ Pattern of sexual discrimination. The fact that they will
discriminate in promoting for partners (taking into account other factors in
promoting), makes it more likely that they will discriminate in other positions,
i.e. associates
• If you are in the position of a litigated motion (you don’t want to be in this
situation)
○ Then its highly likely that an objection based on irrelevancy won't do it
○ If only problem is that its irrelevant, then they'll just give it anyway,
and sort it out later
○ If there's some other issue, like cost burden, then irrelevancy coupled
with it, may work.
§ Or if you can show harassment, burdensome, public policy, etc.