Steve Moore v. Citgo Refining & Chemicals C
735 F.3d 309
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Console supervisors sued CITGO under the FLSA, alleging misclassification as exempt; 26 plaintiffs initially, 24 remained at appeal.
- District court issued two discovery orders requiring preservation/production of notes, emails, and responses; warned that violation could lead to dismissal.
- After evidentiary hearings, the court dismissed 17 plaintiffs for failing to preserve/produce documents (January Sanction) and later dismissed 4 more who deleted or failed to preserve personal emails (March Sanction).
- Three plaintiffs remained; the court barred them from testifying about damages for failing to provide calculations or timely designate an expert, and granted summary judgment for CITGO on damages.
- CITGO sought taxable costs of ~$55,000; district court awarded $5,000, reducing the bill based on plaintiffs’ good faith and the parties’ disparate resources.
- Fifth Circuit affirmed the discovery sanctions and summary judgment but reversed the cost reduction, awarding CITGO $53,065.72 in taxable costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of 17 plaintiffs (January Sanction) for discovery violations was an abuse of discretion | Dismissal was too severe; violations were negligent or due to ambiguity | Plaintiffs willfully disobeyed orders; dismissal is authorized under Rule 37 | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err; Conner factors satisfied |
| Whether dismissal of 4 plaintiffs (March Sanction) for deleting/failing to preserve emails was an abuse of discretion | Conduct was negligent/misunderstood the order; lesser sanctions sufficient | Plaintiffs repeatedly disobeyed, despite warnings and prior dismissals; prejudice to CITGO | Affirmed — dismissal appropriate given wilfulness, prejudice, and lack of effective lesser sanctions |
| Whether excluding damages evidence (barring testimony; denying untimely expert) and entering summary judgment on damages was improper | Exclusion prevented plaintiffs from proving essential element; discovery issues excused delay | Plaintiffs failed to provide damage calculations or timely expert despite discovery and extensions; exclusion permitted by Rule 37 | Affirmed — exclusion and summary judgment were within discretion under Sierra Club factors and Rule 37 |
| Whether district court erred by reducing CITGO’s taxable costs based on CITGO’s wealth and plaintiffs’ limited resources | Reduction justified by Pacheco factors, plaintiffs’ limited means, and prior sanctions already imposed | Relative wealth is not a permissible basis to deny or reduce costs under Rule 54(d); prevailing party presumptively recovers costs | Reversed — reduction based on CITGO’s wealth was impermissible as a matter of law; costs rendered in favor of CITGO |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Dev. B.V., 213 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2000) (district court has broad discovery discretion)
- FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376 (5th Cir. 1994) (factors for dismissal as discovery sanction)
- Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976) (dismissal may be necessary to deter discovery abuse)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate review deferential where district court’s account is plausible)
- Bluitt v. Arco Chem., 777 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1985) (Rule 37 dismissal contemplated)
- Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 1996) (factors for excluding witness testimony as discovery sanction)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (factors guiding district court discretion to reduce/deny costs)
- Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 1999) (relative wealth not a sufficient ground to deny costs)
- Emerick v. Fenick Indus., Inc., 539 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1976) (appellate review of severity of discovery sanctions)