R.S. Logistical Solutions, Ltd v. Janus Global Operations, LLC
3:21-cv-00178
| E.D. Tenn. | Jan 19, 2023Background
- Plaintiff R.S. Logistical Solutions sued Janus Global Operations LLC and Caliburn International, LLC; central discovery dispute concerned Defendants’ communications and documents involving the U.S. Department of State (DOS).
- On August 26, 2022 the court ordered production: documents/communications with DOS (RFP Nos. 1 & 11 and Interrogatory No. 10) were to be produced within 30 days of entry of a protective order (entered Sept. 9), and other requests were to be narrowed via a meet-and-confer.
- Parties negotiated deadlines: they agreed to produce by Oct. 14 (later revised to Oct. 28). Defendants waited to notify DOS of the August 26 Order until Oct. 19; DOS requested additional materials and review, and Defendants did not produce on Oct. 28.
- Plaintiff moved to compel and for sanctions/fees on Nov. 4, 2022, arguing Defendants failed to meet the court-ordered timetable and twice sought extensions while DOS had not been timely advised.
- Defendants contended the delay was justified because DOS needed to review and might object; they believed the court contemplated DOS review (footnote 7) and hoped to avoid motion practice while conferring with Plaintiff and DOS.
- The magistrate judge found production overdue but, because DOS had just received the materials, declined to order immediate production; ordered Defendants to produce within 14 days, notify DOS and file a compliance notice, and awarded Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees (with a schedule for fee submission if parties cannot agree).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Defendants violate the court's production deadline? | Defendants failed to produce documents by the 30-day deadline and by agreed extension (Oct. 28). | Defendants said parties agreed to extensions and DOS review delayed production. | Court: Defendants’ production was overdue; they failed to comply with agreed deadline. |
| Was Defendants’ delay substantially justified because DOS needed to review? | The 30-day window was sufficient and Defendants should have timely notified DOS; delay not justified. | DOS review made immediate production impractical; Defendants relied on DOS involvement. | Court: Delay was not substantially justified—Defendants had contemplated DOS review earlier and did not seek court-ordered extension. |
| Are sanctions/attorney’s fees appropriate? | Plaintiff sought fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for failure to comply. | Defendants argued sanctions are unwarranted due to lack of bad faith and DOS-driven delay. | Court: Awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for filing the motion under Rule 37; bad faith not required for fees. |
| Should court order immediate production despite ongoing DOS review? | Plaintiff sought immediate production. | Defendants said DOS must finish review before production; court should allow time. | Court: Did not order immediate production; instead gave 14 days to produce, required notice to DOS and CM/ECF filing; allowed DOS or Defendants to move if issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark Const. Grp., Inc. v. City of Memphis, 229 F.R.D. 131 (W.D. Tenn. 2005) (discusses Rule 37 sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (defines “substantially justified” standard)
- Doe v. Lexington–Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 407 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2005) (explains standard for substantial justification in sanctions context)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (limits on and guidance for courts’ inherent authority to impose sanctions)
- Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Hammervold, 386 F. Supp. 3d 904 (M.D. Tenn. 2019) (discusses discretion in invoking inherent authority versus Rule-based sanctions)