Two former Morrison & Foerster lawyers who sued the firm claiming it discriminates against pregnant women and new mothers are seeking to block Morrison & Foerster's request for employment records at other law firms where they've worked.

Attorneys at Sanford Heisler Sharp representing plaintiffs Sherry William and Joshua Ashley Klayman have asked the federal magistrate judge overseeing their lawsuit to quash subpoenas seeking their personnel files from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and Linklaters, respectively.

"Such subpoenas are commonly regarded as improper attempts to harass and deter plaintiff and interfere with her job prospects," wrote Sanford Heisler's Deborah Marcuse, in a discovery letter brief filed jointly Monday evening with Morrison & Foerster's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. "By bringing this action, Plaintiffs have not exposed their former and current job records to carte blanche scrutiny regardless of relevance and proportionality," Marcuse wrote.

According to the filing, Morrison & Foerster is seeking documents and communications regarding Freshfields' decision to classify William, who was a senior associate in Morrison & Foerster's project finance practices, as an associate in the incoming class of 2011 rather than 2010. The firm contends that it is seeking information from Freshfields for purely legitimate reasons to defend against her claims that her reclassification and termination were a pretext. "Here, Ms. William challenges Morrison's decision to reclassify her," wrote Gibson Dunn's Michele Maryott on behalf of the law firm. "Yet she has testified that this was not the first (or even second) time a law firm concluded her class year did not align to her legal skills. Both Freshfields and Dewey & LeBoeuf classified and compensated her as a member of the Class of 2011 (not 2010)," Maryott continued.

Morrison & Foerster's lawyers further contend that the firm could use information from William's Freshfields file to test the credibility of representations she made prior to her hire at Morrison & Foerster, including things she said about her experience at Freshfields that led to Morrison & Foerster's initial classification decision.

In the case of Klayman, who is now senior counsel at Linklaters and head of the firm's U.S. fintech and blockchain and digital assets practices, Morrison & Foerster is seeking communications she had with Linklaters about her claims against the firm, her performance and disciplinary records covering about a year's time, and documents relating to her current compensation and benefits, including representations she made during negotiations with Linklaters. Gibson Dunn's Maryott wrote that "to the extent that [Klayman] attributes the fact she was not promoted to partner at Morrison to discrimination, the reasons that she was not hired by Linklaters as a partner either, nor yet promoted to that position, may corroborate the non-discriminatory reasons Morrison did not promote her, and otherwise contradict any suggestion that those reasons are pretextual."

In an email statement, Sanford Heisler's David Sanford said that Morrison & Foerster's request for personal records "continues its unseemly scorched earth defense."

"MoFo intrudes here into plaintiffs' privacy interests and undercuts its purported commitment to women. Not a good way to litigate. And not a good message to send to its female lawyers and to those female lawyers thinking about joining MoFo," Sanford said.

Gibson Dunn's Maryott didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment Tuesday morning. Morrison & Foerster last month, however, hailed the plaintiffs' withdrawal of $100 million in proposed class action claims in the lawsuit as a sort of vindication.

"Dropping all of the class action and collective action claims, it's a clear indication that there's no supporting fact pattern of any of the systemic issues of gender discrimination that they've alleged," Morrison & Foerster chairman Larren Nashelsky told ALM at the time.

Read more: