Quinonez v. Alpha Air Conditioning, Heating & Electrical, LLC, 4:16-cv-01092

Plaintiff Danny Quinonez (and several opt-in former employees) sued Alpha Air Conditioning, Heating & Electrical, LLC under the FLSA for unpaid/undercompensated hours.
Plaintiffs served discovery requesting Alpha’s payroll and time records, central to proving hours worked and compensation.
Alpha failed to produce responsive documents, stopped communicating with counsel, and did not respond to the motion to compel.
Plaintiffs moved to compel (granted September 20, 2017) and separately moved for discovery sanctions seeking to strike Alpha’s Answer.
Alpha did not respond to the motion to compel, the motion for sanctions, or the court’s orders; ownership (the Shellenbergers) was present at a hearing but the company otherwise abandoned participation.
The magistrate judge recommended granting sanctions and striking Alpha’s pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) because the failures were willful and lesser sanctions would not be effective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 37 sanctions (striking pleadings) are appropriate for Alpha’s discovery failures	Alpha willfully refused to produce payroll/time records and ignored court orders; striking pleadings is justified	Alpha failed to respond to the motion; no argument presented to resist sanctions	Magistrate recommends striking Alpha’s Answer under Rule 37(b) as appropriate and proportional given willfulness
Whether Alpha’s conduct was willful	Alpha ceased participation, ignored discovery and orders despite notice; this amounts to willfulness	No responsive submissions or explanation from Alpha	Court finds willfulness based on repeated noncompliance and abandonment
Whether a lesser sanction would suffice	Lesser sanctions would not compel compliance because Alpha has abandoned the case	No argument offered for lesser measures	Court concludes no lesser sanction would work; striking pleadings is necessary
Prejudice to Plaintiffs	Absence of payroll/time records prejudices Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare and prove FLSA claims	No defense presented to rebut prejudice claim	Court finds Plaintiffs prejudiced and that striking pleadings serves discovery process integrity

Diaz v. Southern Drilling Corp., 427 F.2d 1118 (5th Cir. 1970) (sanctions serve to ensure discovery effectiveness)
Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2000) (district courts have broad discretion in discovery)
Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1982) (discretion in discovery will not be disturbed absent unusual circumstances)
Moore v. CITGO Ref. & Chemicals Co., L.P., 735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2013) (broad discretion extends to discovery sanctions)
United States v. $49,000 Currency, 330 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2003) (default-type sanctions require willfulness and lack of effective lesser sanctions; prejudice and client blameworthiness may be considered)
Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (requirements for objections to magistrate judge recommendations and consequences of failing to file specific objections)