Spicer v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc.
2:20-cv-10987
| E.D. Mich. | Aug 9, 2023Background
- Oneka Spicer sued Harvard Maintenance under the Michigan Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act for sex/gender discrimination, race/color discrimination, and hostile work environment; case removed to federal court (diversity jurisdiction).
- Spicer worked as a unionized cleaner under a CBA requiring progressive discipline; she received multiple reprimands, was suspended after being observed using tenant property and loafing, and was terminated after a grievance meeting in October 2018; the union later withdrew the grievance.
- Discovery disputes arose over sequencing and adequacy of depositions: Spicer sought a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Harvard first; Spicer was never deposed before the discovery cutoff and Defendant later noticed her deposition; Defendant moved for an order to show cause (contempt) and filed summary judgment; Spicer moved for Rule 37 sanctions.
- Harvard produced Tatijana Susa as its 30(b)(6) witness (from Miami), but Spicer contended Susa was unprepared on topics (personnel file, termination decision, recordkeeping) and that Harvard failed to produce relevant emails/documents; Harvard claimed it relied on earlier testimony of Vicky Graham for some topics.
- The court denied Harvard’s OSC for contempt, dismissed Harvard’s summary judgment without prejudice pending necessary depositions, and granted Spicer’s Rule 37 motion in part—ordering production of a compliant, Illinois‑based, prepared 30(b)(6) witness and setting sequencing and deadlines for the parties’ depositions; monetary sanctions were declined without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spicer) | Defendant's Argument (Harvard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spicer should be held in contempt or her case dismissed for failing to appear for deposition | Spicer’s counsel conditioned producing Spicer until Harvard’s 30(b)(6) deposition was taken | Counsel improperly refused to produce Spicer and violated FRCP 26(d)(3); Spicer failed to cooperate | OSC denied; court ordered Spicer to appear for deposition promptly |
| Whether the court should decide Harvard’s Motion for Summary Judgment despite missing depositions | Depositions (Spicer and a proper 30(b)(6) witness) are necessary before disposition | Sought summary judgment on merits | SJ dismissed without prejudice; may be renewed after depositions completed |
| Whether sanctions under Rule 37 are warranted for deficient discovery / inadequate 30(b)(6) witness | Harvard failed to produce emails, personnel documents, and produced an unprepared/non‑compliant 30(b)(6) witness | Produced Susa and relied on Graham’s testimony for some topics; contested scope | Sanctions granted in part: Harvard must produce an Illinois‑based, prepared 30(b)(6) witness on personnel file, termination decision, recordkeeping, and bases of Answer; no monetary sanctions now |
| Proper sequencing and scheduling of depositions and subsequent briefing | Wanted 30(b)(6) deposition first | Argued there is no right to dictate order and sought Spicer’s deposition or extension of motion cutoff | Court ordered Spicer’s deposition to occur before the 30(b)(6) deposition and set deadlines for renewed SJ briefing (45 days after 30(b)(6) dep.) |
Key Cases Cited
- None (the opinion does not cite any authorities with official reporter citations).