Fontenot v. Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance Company
2:22-cv-00107
| E.D. La. | Jun 9, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Todd Fontenot and Bobbie Fontenot sued Ocean Harbor Casualty Insurance Company for insurance coverage related to claimed personal property losses, itemized at approximately $175,000.
- The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to allow Defendant to inspect the reportedly lost/damaged property, which is held in a storage unit.
- Plaintiffs were allowed to either grant full access to the storage unit or present the relevant items outside the unit for inspection.
- Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court's discovery order, prompting Defendant to file a motion for sanctions.
- Defendant sought dismissal of the contents claim with prejudice or, alternatively, other appropriate sanctions under Rule 37 for noncompliance.
- The Court granted in part, and denied in part, Defendant’s motion, awarding fees and ordering compliance but withholding case dismissal at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noncompliance with discovery inspection | Delays were due to Defendant; inspection unnecessary; protocol needed | Plaintiffs refused required inspection | Defendant entitled to sanctions; Plaintiffs must comply |
| Appropriateness of dismissal as sanction | N/A (argued other points, not dismissal) | Sought dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance | Dismissal premature; not enough evidence for such severe sanction |
| Award of attorney’s fees/expenses | N/A (no direct rebuttal to fee award) | Sought recovery of attorney’s fees and related inspection costs | Fees/expenses for sanctions motion and inspection awarded to Defendant |
| Attribution of noncompliance | Unclear if Plaintiffs or counsel responsible | Sought clarification on whom to blame | Plaintiffs to clarify source of noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Calsep A/S v. Dabral, 84 F.4th 304 (5th Cir. 2023) (sets standard for imposing litigation-ending sanctions under Rule 37)
- Law Funder, L.L.C. v. Munoz, 924 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2019) (discusses heightened standard for harsh discovery sanctions)
- Batson v. Neal Spelce Assocs., Inc., 765 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1985) (dismissal with prejudice as a last resort for discovery violations)
- Marshall v. Segona, 621 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1980) (restates limited circumstances for dismissal)
- Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976) (Supreme Court guidelines on dismissal for discovery misconduct)
- United States v. $49,000 Currency, 330 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2003) (pattern of discovery delays as a factor in sanctions)
- D.I.C. v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376 (5th Cir. 1994) (establishes four factors for dismissing a case as a discovery sanction)