Morrson Foerster sign. (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)

A federal judge is allowing Morrison & Foerster to get some, but not all, the employment records the firm has requested from Magic Circle law firms that also employed two lawyers now suing Morrison & Foerster for alleged discrimination against pregnant women and mothers.

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California ruled Thursday that the firm could subpoena Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Linklaters for records that could bolster the firm's defense against claims that Morrison & Foerster discriminated against pregnant women and mothers when making decisions about hiring, work assignments and promotions.

However, the Northern District of California judge stopped short of granting the firm's request for the entire personnel files for Sherry William, who practiced at Freshfields prior to joining Morrison & Foerster's project finance group in Los Angeles, and Joshua Ashley Klayman, who has since gone on to head the U.S. fintech and blockchain and digital assets practices at Linklaters since leaving Morrison & Foerster's New York office.

Corley found that communications about William's job performance and Freshfield's decisions about which associate class to place her in were relevant since her "performance and demonstrated skills are central to the lawsuit." The judge further found that Klayman's communications to Linklaters about her claims against Morrison & Foerster, her current compensation and benefits, and performance evaluations and disciplinary records in her first year of work at the new firm all had potential relevance to the defense.

"Material is discoverable if it is relevant to a claim or defense and 'need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable,'" wrote Corley citing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"Plaintiff's boilerplate 'such discovery is not proportional' argument does not satisfy plaintiff's burden to successfully resist this relevant discovery," she wrote.

Representatives of the firm didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

In an email statement Sanford Heisler Sharp chairman David Sanford, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "Defense tactics like these are an all-too-common attempt to distract from the heart of the claims at issue."

"We look forward to moving past such distraction into vigorous discovery relevant to the central question of this case: whether Morrison & Foerster—a firm that vigorously markets itself as a top choice for women and parents—has for years engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination and retaliation against female attorneys who are pregnant and have children," Sanford said.

Read more:

Remaining Plaintiffs in 'Mommy Track' Suit Against Morrison & Foerster Fight Requests for Records From Freshfields, Linklaters

War of Words Follows Class Action Retreat in MoFo 'Mommy Track' Suit

LA Associate, Linklaters Crypto Expert Move Forward With 'Mommy Track' Suit Against MoFo

In 'Mommy Track' Lawsuit Against Morrison & Foerster, 5 Jane Doe Plaintiffs Settle

In 'Mommy Track' Lawsuit, MoFo Points to Its Track Record for Defense