Jones Day offices in Washington D.C. Photo: Mike Scarcella.

A federal judge has pushed off a decision on whether Jones Day will have to hand over compensation data to plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination at the firm.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia on Thursday said that he will wait to rule on a motion to dismiss from Jones Day in the case to determine which claims are still live and then determine what kind of discovery plaintiffs in the case can have.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case—women who have alleged firmwide gender discrimination at Jones Day—are seeking access to databases that include information on compensation for about 2,000 firm associates.

Kate Mueting, a co-chair of Sanford Heisler Sharp's Title VII practice group in Washington, D.C., and an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued to Moss that access to the data is necessary as they work to certify a class in the lawsuit.

She said an expert needs to analyze the data and then create a statistical analysis to show whether there is a discrepancy in compensation on the basis of sex.

When Moss raised concerns about a "potentially extensive" scope of discovery at this point in the case, Mueting replied that much of the data they are seeking is stored in centralized databases.

And she said that, regardless of how Moss rules on the motion to dismiss and what claims move forward, the plaintiffs will still seek the compensation data and that there was no need to further delay their access.

But Moss was still skeptical. "I can allege the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't mean I can get discovery into the cheese factory," he said at one point.

And Moss raised Jones Day's assertion that the compensation is determined by each office and not at a firmwide level. He said that even if a managing partner signed off on compensation, it didn't necessarily mean the partner was involved in determining that compensation.

Terri Chase, a Jones Day attorney representing the firm, also said the plaintiffs are seeking "extensive discovery."

"Many of these attorneys do not want this data shared with counsel," Chase said, adding that many of the lawyers whose data would be exposed are not involved in the case.

Chase said that information in the Jones Day manuals suggests the firm treats each of its markets differently and that getting access to all of that compensation data is therefore irrelevant for plaintiffs in the case who were not in those offices or markets.

She said a "partner in charge" at each office made the recommendation for compensation there, rather than it being a firmwide matter.

And Chase said that some of the data sought from years like 2012 is also irrelevant, as compensation is now significantly higher than at that time for certain markets. She said pay at that time could be $20,000 or even $45,000 less than it was in 2016.

She further argued that while the plaintiffs are alleging discrimination, they said they were being discriminated in different ways, and therefore it couldn't prove a firmwide pattern of action.

Moss seemed highly skeptical that the data was needed at this point. He noted that some of the information, like evaluations of associates, is likely to contain confidential information about Jones Day clients.

Mueting noted that there was a protective order in place that would prevent confidential information from being shared. And she said that confidential information was already shared in emails provided by Jones Day to the plaintiffs.

Moss questioned whether redacting that client information would create a further burden for Jones Day.

Chase said Jones Day took the issue of client confidentiality "very seriously," and that it had determined that the emails provided to the plaintiffs included privileged information that the plaintiffs were previously involved in and already aware of.

She said that if the plaintiffs sought the underlying information for attorney evaluations, that would require a "much broader set of redactions."

In his oral order, Moss said he will extend the deadline for the plaintiffs to file a class certification in the case as a result of him pushing off a decision on class discovery.