271 F.R.D. 549
E.D. Pa.2010Background
- Plaintiff Coleman-Hill sues for race discrimination under Title VII and PHRA against Governor Mifflin School District.
- Plaintiff’s counsel Robin J. Gray used subpoenas and discovery tactics to obtain District documents she believed were withheld.
- Gray served a subpoena duces tecum on District tech director Rachel Dombrowski, seeking emails, with no proper notice to opposing party and improper scope.
- District timely moved for sanctions on Gray for misuse of Rule 45 subpoenas and self-help discovery tactics.
- Court grants sanctions in part: precludes privileged documents, imposes Bates stamping and affidavit duties, awards attorney’s fees, and admonishes Gray to follow Rules.
- The court notes Gray’s admission of routinely filling subpoenas incompletely and her belief that the court lacked power to address discovery violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gray’s subpoena was proper under Rule 45. | Coleman-Hill argues subpoenas were misused to obtain district-documents beyond the production requests. | Mifflin District contends the subpoena was improperly served and overbroad, lacking notice and proper scope. | No; court finds improper use and lack of proper notice and scope. |
| Whether sanctions are warranted for Gray’s conduct. | Coleman-Hill contends sanctions are unnecessary or limited. | Mifflin District seeks sanctions for bad faith, including fees and evidence preclusion. | Sanctions, in part, warranted to deter self-help discovery. |
| Whether exclusion of the Dombrowski documents is appropriate. | Exclusion would prejudice plaintiff’s ability to prove claims. | Exclusion is necessary to deter misuse. | Partial preclusion; privileged documents excluded; blanket preclusion denied without prejudice. |
| Whether attorney’s fees and a formal affidavit are warranted. | Fees should reflect misconduct and burden on defense. | Fees appropriate due to bad-faith conduct. | Fees awarded; Gray must file fee petition and pay reasonable fees; affidavit required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Steinman, 179 F.R.D. 484 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (prior notice required for subpoenas to nonparties; risks of subpoenas.)
- U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (recognizes difficulty of proving discrimination and need for reliable evidence.)
- Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corp., 112 F.3d 710 (3d Cir. 1997) (multifactor test for sanctions and discovery abuse.)
- Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n, 559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1977) (premise that employment cases have proof problems and avoid blanket exclusions.)
- Quinn v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del., 283 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 2002) (extreme sanction doctrine and four-factor test for exclusion of evidence.)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 278 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2002) (attorney’s fees may be awarded for bad-faith discovery misconduct.)
- Mid-Atlantic Constructors Inc. v. Stone & Webster Constr., Inc., 231 F.R.D. 465 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (sanctions framework: prejudice, deterrence, and policy considerations.)