Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition v. District of Columbia
286 F.R.D. 117
D.D.C.2012Background
- MASF moved for protective order to shield from unauthorized discovery demands by the District of Columbia in disobedience of a Scheduling Order.
- Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint challenged DC regulations governing postering and signage as to First Amendment, Due Process, and §1983 claims; only MASF remained after prior dismissals.
- Scheduling Order allowed limited discovery by plaintiff, with no discovery requests by or awarded to the District, and set a May 18, 2012 discovery close.
- District propounded eleven interrogatories and a production request, including questions to a dismissed party and dismissed claims, contrary to the Scheduling Order.
- MASF sought protective relief, costs, and fees; the District withdrew some interrogatories but continued others, and defended its actions as lawful.
- The Court found the District’s discovery unauthorized, awarded costs and fees to MASF, and prohibited further discovery by the District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the District authorized to propound discovery? | MASF argues no authority under the Scheduling Order. | District contends implicit or substantial justification for discovery under orders and rules. | District discovery unauthorized; protective order granted. |
| Should sanctions and costs be imposed for violation of the Scheduling Order? | MASF seeks payment of costs and attorney’s fees caused by unauthorized discovery. | District disputes or minimizes the need for sanctions. | MA SF awarded reasonable costs and fees; District ordered to pay. |
| How should the Scheduling Order be interpreted regarding discovery limits? | Scheduling Order imposed limits that restricted the District’s discovery. | District claimed no explicit prohibition or broader authority was implied. | Scheduling Order limits were violated; discovery unauthorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olgyay v. Soc. for Envtl. Graphic Design, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 219 (D. Del. 1996) (scheduling orders serve as a roadmap and require good cause to modify)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (power to sanction for abuse of the judicial process; inherent authority)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975) (sanctions for willful disobedience of a court order)
- Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821) (courts’ power to enforce their mandates and maintain order)
- Tavoulareas v. Washington Post, 111 F.R.D. 653 (D.D.C. 1986) (discretion in evaluating good cause and sanctions in discovery)
- Low v. Whitman, 207 F.R.D. 9 (D.D.C. 2002) (requirement that movant articulate specific facts to show good cause)