Smith v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 2015-0161

Smith sued D.C. and DOC employees alleging 23-day overdetention after a court-ordered release; case removed to federal court.
During discovery Smith sought DOC ‘‘over-detention’’ reports and native TMS (transaction management system) data showing when release orders were uploaded.
DOC initially pointed to an interrogatory table (monthly counts) and told Smith the TMS data "does not exist," but later (on a deposition day) produced some TMS data and, after repeated requests, produced the over-detention reports months later.
Smith moved for sanctions and fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), 30(b)(6), 37(c)(1) and 37(d), alleging failures to disclose/supplement and to prepare the 30(b)(6) witness.
The magistrate judge found DOC violated its supplementing/disclosure obligations and failed to adequately prepare its 30(b)(6) witness for one deposition; awarded limited sanctions.
Relief: DOC precluded from using TMS data for case no. 2012 CMD 7806; Smith awarded $18,428.30 in attorneys’ fees and $454.93 in costs; no jury-adverse instruction ordered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to disclose/supplement TMS data under Rule 26(e)/37(c)(1)	Smith: DOC misrepresented that TMS data didn’t exist and failed to timely supplement; fees/costs warranted	D.C.: Eventually produced material; no Rule 26/26(e) violation; no sanctions	Held: DOC violated Rule 26(e); sanctions (fees/costs) awarded for TMS-related discovery costs
Failure to produce over-detention reports under Rule 26(e)/37(c)(1)	Smith: DOC produced only a table but withheld authored reports for ~10 months; fees/costs warranted	D.C.: Repeated supplementation adequate; no sanction needed	Held: DOC failed to timely produce reports; fees/costs awarded for extended discovery to obtain them
Unprepared 30(b)(6) witness under Rule 37(d) (over-detention topics)	Smith: Ms. Myrick was unprepared and did not bring/search reports	D.C.: Witness appeared (twice); no Rule 37(d) sanction appropriate	Held: For the over-detention deposition, sanction not separately imposed because Rule 37(c) remedy covers failures; limited fee relief granted nonetheless
Unprepared 30(b)(6) witness under Rule 37(d) (TMS topics, case 2012 CMD 7806)	Smith: Myrick failed to search for or bring TMS data for 2012 CMD 7806, warranting mandatory monetary sanctions	D.C.: Appearance satisfied Rule 37(d); no further sanction	Held: DOC failed to educate its witness re: 2012 CMD 7806; monetary sanctions required and DOC precluded from using that TMS data at trial/hearing/motion

Norden v. Samper, 544 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2008) (Rule 37(c)(1) is self-executing; motive irrelevant)
Romero v. ITW Food Equip. Grp. LLC, 289 F.R.D. 387 (D.D.C. 2013) (movant must first show undisclosed evidence)
DL v. District of Columbia, 274 F.R.D. 320 (D.D.C. 2011) (burden shifts to sanctioned party to show substantial justification/harmlessness)
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 216 F.R.D. 168 (D.D.C. 2003) (failure to educate 30(b)(6) witness can equate to failure to appear)
Bonds v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (sanctions must be proportional; deterrence is a valid goal)
Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14 (D.D.C. 2010) (distinguishes degrees of 30(b)(6) unpreparedness)
Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (LSI-Laffey rates can be acceptable for fee awards)
National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1976) (deterrence as a sanction objective)
Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., 289 F.R.D. 374 (D.D.C. 2013) (lodestar method for fee awards)
Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (reasonable fee rates reflect prevailing community rates)