OKMULGEE COUNTY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. v. MACKEY
2017 OK CIV APP 37
Okla. Civ. App.2017Background
- OCFRC sued Mackey for malicious prosecution in state court after prevailing in a federal Title VII action; Mackey answered pro se and asserted reliance on counsel as a defense.
- A scheduling order set discovery cut-off; a dispute arose over a deposition subpoena and Mackey moved to quash and to extend discovery.
- At a November 19, 2014 hearing the court entered a minute directing Mackey to appear for a December 12 deposition; OCFRC filed a late combined response/motion seeking an order compelling discovery and sanctions.
- Mackey attended the December 12 deposition unrepresented and invoked the Fifth Amendment to many questions; OCFRC did not seek a court order compelling answers at that time.
- Months later the trial court granted OCFRC default judgment as a discovery sanction under 12 O.S. § 3237, then awarded damages and attorney fees based on an affidavit, without providing Mackey notice or a hearing on damages.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion because there was no valid order compelling answers before sanctions and Mackey was denied a post-default hearing on unliquidated damages and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the November 19 minute was an order compelling discovery sufficient to support sanctions | The minute (and alleged oral order) compelled Mackey to "submit" to deposition and answer questions; thus sanctions could follow her refusal | Minute did not and could not order answers to unknown future questions or preclude invocation of privilege; no valid order to compel was entered | Court: Minute/oral comments did not constitute a specific order compelling answers; sanctions for refusal to answer were improper |
| Whether invoking Fifth Amendment at deposition violated a discovery order | OCFRC: refusal to answer after court direction showed disobedience warranting default | Mackey: privilege invocation lawful; no prior order prohibited asserting privilege and no order compelling answers was obtained | Court: Invoking privilege did not violate any specific prior order; default sanction was abuse of discretion |
| Whether damages and attorney fees could be awarded on the default without a hearing | OCFRC: damages affidavit and prior direction to submit affidavit provided adequate notice; Mackey should have requested a hearing | Mackey: default admits liability but not amount; statutory right to post-default hearing on unliquidated damages and ability to contest evidence | Court: Awarding unliquidated damages and fees without notice/hearing violated due process; defendant entitled to meaningful post-default inquiry |
| Whether federal Title VII fees could be recovered as damages in state malicious prosecution action | OCFRC: fees incurred defending Title VII suit are recoverable as damages here | Mackey: federal fee remedies and standards apply; plaintiff waived fee claim in federal case; recovery as state damages requires satisfying federal standards and preclusion analysis | Court: Recovery of Title VII fees as damages requires inquiry under federal standards (Christiansburg/Hughes); record silent and trial court should scrutinize viability on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Helton v. Coleman, 811 P.2d 100 (Okla. 1991) (motion to compel/order to compel is prerequisite to sanctions under § 3237)
- Barnett v. Simmons, 197 P.3d 12 (Okla. 2008) (sanctions analysis focuses on whether party failed to obey an order)
- Payne v. DeWitt, 995 P.2d 1088 (Okla. 1999) (default admits liability but defendant retains statutory right to hearing on unliquidated damages)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1978) (prevailing Title VII defendant may recover fees only if plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (what constitutes frivolous/factually baseless claims)
- Alexander v. Alexander, 357 P.3d 481 (Okla. 2015) (court minutes cannot constitute final appealable orders)