Filed: September 29, 2026
| Entered: September 29, 2026
Williams et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. et al
442 Civil Rights: Jobs | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Magistrate Status/Motion hearing held. Discussion held on State Farm's motion for a apex witness issue, using Dkt. # 443 as a discussion starting point. As to Tipsord (Topic 1), State Farm stated that his deposition is unnecessary and irrelevant, CEO had no role in termination decisions and that Tipsord had a very limited role in the termination review process (which ended almost 9 years ago), which is an optional review instigated by the agent. State Farm indicated that Tipsord did not overturn any termination decision for any agent. State Farm also objected on proportionality grounds. Plaintiffs asserted that State Farm should have obtained a declaration from Tipsord and asserts they need the deposition because he has relevant information and Plaintiffs need to show a common practice. State Farm stated a declaration form the witness is not required and State Farm attached a declaration from James Wright, Agency Executive. As to Tipsord's (Topic 2, 3 and 4) development of corporate goals and strategies, reporting analysis, the TICA program, and Tipsord's discussion of common issues facing agents, State Farm noted Plaintiffs are seeking the same testimony from all four apex witnesses so its not unique knowledge to Tipsord, and that State Farm does not set goals or measures of performance for agents, and CEO and Chief Agency Officer are not responsible for setting the policies and practices raised in this lawsuit. State Farm further asserted TICA policies and changes to agent compensation and incentives, etc. do not come from the CEO or other apex witnesses. State Farm asserts Plaintiffs' approach on commonality is inapposite; State Farm asserts the proper inquiry is whether the decisions that are made across the board as to agents be adjudicated together. Plaintiffs argue that documents show that Tipsord did make decisions on goals and strategy and "pushed" these down to lower'level executives. Page 6, Topic 5, Tipsord's presentation to the board and decision to create Chief Diversity Officer role, State Farm noted Plaintiffs deposed CDO in both personal and corporate capacity and noted that others have knowledge of the CDO issues. As to the board presentation, State Farm asserted the presentation is irrelevant, provided general statistics on agents in a hip pocket listing that was not part of the main slide deck, and there was no presentation to the board on agent demographics. As to Topic 6, complaints of discrimination, Court inquired of Plaintiffs how this is relevant to class certification. As to Mr. Harbert, Chief of Agency, Topic # 1 termination of agents, State Farm states he does not have a role, rather the decision is made by the market area SVP. Topic # 2, guidance regarding compliance, Court noted this is quite broad and may not be relevant to class certification. Plaintiffs stated Mr. Harbert issues Rand's (Dkt. # 450-10) memos regarding compliance policies and practice. State Farm noted that Mr. Wright authored those memos. Topic # 3, agent compensation, Court noted this is an important issue that is likely common to the class. State Farm noted Plaintiffs have not taken the Rule 30(b)(6) witness on compensation; and the QRP task force (Dkt. # 450-9) has at least 20 members and Plaintiffs have not shown that Mr. Harbert's testimony is required. Plaintiffs asserted that individualized decisions ("What Mr. Harbert was thinking") need to be explored. As to complaints of discrimination, State Farm says he alone did not handle any complaints. As to Topics 5, 6 and 7, corporate goals and strategies for agents, State Farm stated no one sets specific goals and strategies for agents, and any incentive programs are optional. Court noted any apex witness depositions will likely be time limited and focused. State Farm stated it will object to two bites at the apple as to depositions, but acknowledged the prospect of a full blown deposition at this time may create its own burdens. Plaintiffs understood the practical issues of conducting a comprehensive apex witness deposition at this stage of the litigation. Court may issue a ruling prior to the next status hearing. Court has reviewed the joint status report and is pleased that issues seem to be progressing appropriately. Status hearing set for 10/20/26 at 11:30 a.m. Joint status report due by COB on 10/16/26. Mailed notice (ao, ) (Entered: 09/29/2026)