Adams, John R., United States District Judge
Trial court sanctioned defendants in an employment discrimination lawsuit in the form of over $300,000 in attorney’s fees and a mistrial for their blatant failure to comply with discovery requests and fraudulent production.
Plaintiffs alleged that they were the victims of racial slurs and discriminatory practices levied against them while employed by defendants and that defendants’ actions became even more hostile when plaintiffs filed discrimination complaints.
During discovery, defendants withheld entire personnel files in some instances. When defendants did produce personnel files, many were incomplete. Defendants also failed to produce the internal notes of attorneys hired to investigate plaintiffs’ original complaints, and when the internal notes were finally produced, some had been materially altered. In one instance, there was even proof that defendants altered the transcripts of employee interviews originally taken during the internal investigation of plaintiffs’ claims. Not only was the interviewee’s response altered, but a notation by the attorney stating “bad for us” was redacted.
The court found that defendants’ actions were egregious, substantially prejudiced the plaintiffs, and warranted severe sanctions. The contemptibility of defendants’ actions was reflected in the court’s nearly unprecedented move of declaring a mistrial. But, as the court stated, the defendants inability “to comply with their discovery obligations … effectively set this case back to its starting point. As a result, trial proceedings and for that matter, motion practice was rendered largely meaningless.” The only appropriate remedy was to allow the plaintiffs to engage in new discovery, though the plaintiffs would still have no guarantee that defendants would fully comply. The court also awarded plaintiffs the entire amount of their attorney’s fees, over $300,000, and ordered defendants to pay the cost of all future discovery.
v.
SPITZER MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants
ORDER
Sanctions that the court may impose for discovery violations include-in ascending order of harshness—an order directing the noncompliant party to provide further discovery; shifting of costs, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the other parties in connection with the discovery violation; imposing fines payable to the court on the culpable party or its attorneys; an instruction informing the jury of the discovery breach; an order precluding the noncompliant party from using particular pieces of evidence that were withheld during discovery in connection with motions or at trial; an order establishing particular facts, issues, claims, or defenses related to the discovery abuse against the noncompliant party; or the entry of a default judgment, dismissal, or declaration of a mistrial (“terminating sanctions”).
Regarding your Request For Production No. 7, I believe Mr. Giardini thoroughly addressed the issue of his notes and correspondence in his deposition. I believe his testimony was that he did not retain these documents. Again, we cannot produce that which we do not have. I can represent to you that I now have the entire file regarding this case and that no such “notes” exist.