Cedric Goodloe v. Daphne Utilities, 689 F. App'x 925

Plaintiff Cedric Goodloe sued Daphne Utilities under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleging employment discrimination; trial occurred and judgment for defendant was affirmed.
After discovery closed, Daphne Utilities served a subpoena on Goodloe’s former employer, Hargrove Engineering, obtaining a copy of an EEOC charge Goodloe had filed against Hargrove.
Daphne Utilities used the Hargrove EEOC charge at trial to impeach Goodloe; Goodloe did not object at trial to admission of that document.
Daphne Utilities amended the joint pretrial document after discovery to add six exhibits (payroll/benefits ledgers with handwritten corrections) that it used to show Goodloe’s performance issues.
Goodloe moved for sanctions, sought exclusion of the late-disclosed exhibits, and moved for a new trial based on defense counsel’s allegedly improper subpoena and use of the Hargrove EEOC charge.
The district court denied sanctions, allowed the exhibit list amendment and admission of the documents, and denied a new trial; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sanctions for subpoenaing confidential records after discovery closed	Goodloe: defense counsel intentionally used an invalid subpoena to obtain confidential personnel/EEOC records and should be sanctioned	Daphne: conduct not in bad faith; no added cost to Goodloe; document was listed in exhibit list	Denied — no abuse of discretion; no bad faith or sanctionable multiplication of proceedings; Rule 16/26 sanctions unwarranted
Allowing amendment to pretrial exhibit list after discovery	Goodloe: late disclosure of six payroll/benefits documents prejudiced him and should be excluded	Daphne: performance was always central; documents were consistent with notice in summary judgment; any nondisclosure was harmless	Denied exclusion — district court did not abuse discretion; any disclosure failure was harmless or justified
New trial for attorney misconduct re: subpoena/use of EEOC charge	Goodloe: counsel’s “trickery and deceit” in getting and using the charge tainted trial and warrants a new trial	Daphne: no malicious/bad-faith conduct shown; Goodloe failed to preserve evidentiary objection at trial	Denied — no abuse of discretion; no showing of malicious conduct and failure to object at trial was fatal

Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927)
United States v. Samaniego, 345 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for sanctions under Rule 16)
BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for discovery sanctions)
Amlong & Amlong P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir.) (definition of counsel conduct tantamount to bad faith under § 1927)
Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir.) (purpose of Rule 16(f) sanctions to punish delay/interference with trial preparation)
Benson v. Tocco, Inc., 113 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir.) (review of district court discovery rulings for abuse of discretion)
Lambert v. Fulton Cty., Ga., 253 F.3d 588 (11th Cir.) (review standard for denial of a new trial)
Proctor v. Fluor Enters., Inc., 494 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir.) (evidentiary rulings reviewed only if party preserved objection at trial)