Taffe v. Wengert, 0:16-cv-61595

Plaintiff Donnett Taffe sued Deputy Gerald Wengert and Sheriff Scott Israel (individually and officially) alleging Wengert killed decedent Steven Thompson and that Israel’s policies/ customs caused the violation; case removed to federal court.
The Court granted in part a motion to compel and ordered a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition; Israel produced five departmental witnesses.
Plaintiff moved for Rule 37 sanctions, arguing the designated witnesses were inadequately prepared and Defendant withheld or failed to produce responsive documents.
Defendant explained document searches are decentralized, many records are not electronically indexed, and human error or custodial issues (e.g., Cooper City retaining personnel files; separate robbery/homicide investigations) caused gaps.
The Court reviewed each corporate deponent’s testimony (Edwards, Cates/Goodrich, Hoover, Pratt, Mendia/Gargotta) and outstanding discovery requests and found explanations or corrective steps for the alleged deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 37 sanctions are warranted for inadequate Rule 30(b)(6) testimony generally	Taffe: deponents lacked knowledge/preparation and thus Defendant failed discovery obligations	Israel: produced multiple witnesses, explained limits of departmental records, and supplemented productions where appropriate	Denied — no basis for sanctions; testimony and remediation efforts adequate
Adequacy of crime-lab designee (Diana Edwards)	Edwards could not initially account for missing DNA/firearm/fingerprint materials	Edwards explained the search process, identified why items were missed, obtained additional records, and instituted corrective steps	Denied — deponent explained discrepancies and remedied production gaps
Adequacy of supervisory records designees (Capt. Cates & Goodrich)	Their produced list lacked date-specific supervisor assignments	No central database exists; shift variability prevents exact day-by-day supervisor lists; provided best possible information	Denied — defendant adequately explained nonexistence of precise data and produced possible supervisor list
Scope confusion re: robbery vs. homicide materials (Detective Hoover)	Hoover did not produce or confirm all audio/video; failed to confirm completeness	Investigations are separate (different case numbers); initial productions targeted homicide; defendant supplemented robbery materials once scope clarified	Denied — confusion was reasonable; defendant supplemented productions

Griffin v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 564 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1977) (Rule 37 authorizes dismissal among other sanctions)
Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F.2d 141 (11th Cir. 1988) (dismissal is an extreme remedy; lesser sanctions preferred)
Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1990) (district courts have discretion to impose extreme sanctions for flagrant discovery misconduct)
Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976) (affirming district court discretion to dismiss for discovery abuse)
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (district courts have substantial discretion in Rule 37 sanctions)
Devaney v. Continental Am. Ins. Co., 989 F.2d 1154 (11th Cir. 1993) (no bad-faith prerequisite for Rule 37 sanctions against attorneys; conduct can be ‘substantially justified’)
Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 775 F.2d 1440 (11th Cir. 1985) (Rule 37 sanctions serve deterrence)