Angela Lambert v. Worldwide Marketing Technologies Corporation
708 F. App'x 559
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lambert sued her former employer Worldwide Marketing Technologies and its owners for whistleblower retaliation, Title VII and ADEA discrimination, FLSA wage claims, defamation, and unjust enrichment.
- During discovery Lambert produced a handwritten/typed document allegedly showing overtime but refused to provide a digital copy or allow inspection of her computer after representing the document was created and maintained there.
- Worldwide sought inspection; the magistrate ordered the parties to set a date and search parameters for inspection. Lambert refused to produce the computer and responded to Worldwide’s inspection email with inflammatory, sexualized language refusing compliance.
- Around the same time, Worldwide customers received anonymous packages containing Lambert’s filings and a threatening settlement letter; surveillance photos and mail records implicated Lambert in mailing the packages despite her denials.
- The magistrate found Lambert disobeyed the discovery order and attempted to deceive the court; the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed Lambert’s complaint with prejudice as a sanction for willful discovery violation and deceit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was a proper sanction for refusing computer inspection and perjury | Lambert argued the order only required the parties to try to agree on inspection; she also claimed intimidation by Worldwide’s email | Worldwide argued Lambert willfully disobeyed a court order, refused inspection after warnings, and lied about mailing packages | Court held dismissal was justified under Rule 37 and inherent authority for willful noncompliance and deceit |
| Whether Lambert had a right to a de novo hearing on magistrate’s report | Lambert claimed magistrate failed to advise her of a right to a hearing | Defendants argued de novo review by the district court suffices; no de novo hearing required | Court held no such right to a de novo hearing exists; de novo review requirement does not mandate an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether consent was required to refer pretrial/discovery matters to a magistrate judge | Lambert argued she did not consent to magistrate jurisdiction | Defendants pointed to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) allowing magistrate referral for pretrial matters without consent | Court held consent not required for magistrate to hear discovery/pretrial matters |
| Whether the district court adequately reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation | Lambert questioned adequacy of district court’s review | Defendants argued the district court performed the required de novo review and adopted the magistrate’s well-reasoned findings | Court affirmed that the district court conducted de novo review and properly accepted the recommendation |
Key Cases Cited
- BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for sanctions: abuse of discretion)
- GDG Acquisitions, LLC v. Gov't of Belize, 749 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard and scope of review)
- Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir. 2006) (district court’s inherent authority to dismiss for misconduct)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (litigant who ignores discovery orders is subject to sanctions)
- United States v. Veteto, 701 F.2d 136 (11th Cir. 1983) (statute requiring de novo determination by district court does not mandate a de novo hearing)