287 F.R.D. 88
D.D.C.2012Background
- George and Patricia Hildebrandt sue under ECOA alleging racial discrimination by USDA defendants.
- Defendants move for sanctions for plaintiffs' failure to comply with discovery and related misconduct by plaintiffs' former counsel.
- Magistrate Judge Facciola ordered plaintiffs to supplement interrogatories and link documents to requests; deadlines were repeatedly missed.
- Plaintiffs' former counsel Myart engaged in misconduct; new counsel failed to timely file a compliant excusable neglect motion leading to sanction considerations.
- Court ultimately orders plaintiffs to comply with outstanding discovery; sanctions include potential attorney's fees against Myart and possible future orders to ensure prosecution viability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal is warranted as a sanction. | Hildebrandts should not be dismissed given efforts to comply. | Noncompliance with a discovery order justifies dismissal under Webb/Bonds framework. | Dismissal not warranted; lesser sanctions considered. |
| Whether lesser sanctions should replace dismissal. | Plaintiffs should be able to proceed with discovery and merits. | Court should impose sanctions that compel compliance without constituting default judgment. | Court imposes discovery-compliance sanction rather than dismissal; some requests denied. |
| Whether the plaintiffs' notice of filing should be struck and discovery materials barred. | Notice supports response to defendants' assertions; admissible under Rule 5.2(b). | Notice violates Local Rule 5.2(a) and lacks proper authorization. | Motion to strike denied; notice permitted to aid opposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonds v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (guides dismissal and deterrence under Rule 37; sanctions must be proportional)
- Shea v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 795 F.2d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (caution against harsh sanctions for attorney misconduct; client notification required before dismissal for deterrence)
- Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (Supreme Court 1976) (prejudice and sanctions in prolonged discovery failures; guidance for court discretion)
- Webb v. Dist. of Columbia, 146 F.3d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (prejudice/burden framework for when dismissal or severe sanctions are appropriate)