M.K. v. Tenet (part 2) case brief
Facts: Filed by six former employees of CIA, its director and others that defendants violated Privacy Act of 1974 by alleging that defendants obstructed plaintiff’s access to counsel. Plaintiff proposed second amendment complaint where plaintiff wanted to add another nine plaintiff’s and provided more info to cure deficiencies. Defendants want to sever claims of initial 6 plaintiff’s under Rule 21.
Reasoning: Turn to Rule 20 here. Plaintiff argued logically related language, which was used in LASA. Court says that logically related events may consistent of an alleged consistent pattern from the facts. In this case, defendants constantly stop plaintiff from obtaining info, and without that info there is no case. Decided that because defendants constantly obstruct plaintiffs from justice in a repeated pattern, it is logically related to the overall pattern of employment discrimination. First prong of Rule 20(a) is satisfied.
Second prong: Satisfied it by proving a common question of law or fact. Ct denies motion to sever.
Rule 20 policy: promote trial convenience, expediting final determination of disputes and prevent multiple lawsuits.