304 F.R.D. 51
D.D.C.2014Background
- This action is a putative class action by former DC CFSA employees challenging a RIF and a bachelor’s-degree requirement for Family Social Worker as pretext for discrimination.
- DC seeks sanctions under Rule 37 for extensive discovery violations by Plaintiffs’ counsel, not the named Plaintiffs.
- Phase I discovery focused on four topics; discovery disputes persist well after the phase closed (Jan 24, 2014).
- Plaintiffs failed to provide verified interrogatory responses, failed to produce right-to-sue letters, and did not timely disclose expert information.
- The court found monetary sanctions appropriate against Plaintiffs’ attorneys (Rose and Temple) totaling $4,629.50, and ordered further discovery and limited reopening for expert discovery.
- Dismissal or other merits-based sanctions were considered but found inappropriate as first-line remedies; sanctions were designed to compel compliance and allow merits adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal or similar merits sanctions are warranted | Davis class argues sanctions should not reach the merits. | District contends dismissal or severe sanctions are necessary due to prolonged noncompliance. | Dismissal not warranted; monetary and evidentiary sanctions chosen. |
| Whether monetary sanctions against counsel are appropriate | Rose/Temple argue sanctions should not target counsel’s clients. | Sanctions should target counsel due to professional misconduct in discovery. | Monetary sanctions against Rose and Temple confirmed. |
| Whether to reopen discovery for expert discovery | Propose limited reopening for Gray, Munro, Bronars deposing. | Reopening should be limited and narrowly tailored to expert issues. | Discovery reopened for limited expert discovery; depositions permitted. |
| Whether exclusion of expert evidence is appropriate | Excluding Munro/Bronars would prejudice plaintiffs’ case. | Less severe sanctions suffice; expert issues essential to merits. | Not excluding expert reports; monetary and limited reopening chosen. |
| Whether District is entitled to fees under the Laffey Matrix | Plaintiffs contest applying Laffey rates to government attorneys. | Laffey rates appropriate; reasonable hours and rates proven. | Laffey matrix adopted; sanctions awarded in the amount of $4,454.50 plus $175.00 expense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonds v. Dist. of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (central to reasonableness and proportionality of sanctions under Rule 37)
- Hildebrandt v. Vilsack, 287 F.R.D. 88 (D.D.C. 2012) (sanctions must be just and proportionate; dismissal as last resort)
- Shea v. Donohoe Const. Co., Inc., 795 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (preference for non-merits sanctions when possible to resolve discovery disputes)
- Webb v. Dist. of Columbia, 146 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (default dismissal inappropriate unless clear prejudice or irreparable harm; merits favored)
- Trakas v. Quality Brands, Inc., 759 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (disposition of cases on the merits generally favored; dismissal last resort)