Ali v. Dainese USA, Inc.

Background

Kalimah Ali brought an employment-discrimination case alleging that Alberto Rubio and Hector Hernandez sexually harassed her and that Dainese USA, Inc. constructively discharged her after she alerted supervisors to their conduct. The defendants moved for discovery sanctions after fact discovery closed and Ali disclosed documents that she had previously represented were unavailable or already produced.

The disputed materials included text messages about the case, emails concerning jobs Ali did not obtain after her termination, documents relating to prior civil lawsuits, and documents concerning a prior name change. The court had extended discovery twice and had ordered that fact discovery close on November 6, 2020, while warning that no further extensions would be granted. Ali later produced some materials after the deadline, including text messages, documents related to a prior defamation lawsuit, and employment-search records. She also testified that she had deleted many emails rejecting her job applications.

Legal standard and findings

Although the defendants cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the court analyzed the motion under Rule 16 because it concerned noncompliance with a scheduling order. The court found that Ali violated the September 9, 2020 order by failing to timely disclose text messages exchanged with Gilbert Rios and Brent Graham, job-rejection notices, and documents related to prior civil actions. The court found that the violation was willful because the deadlines and required document categories were clear, Ali understood her obligations, and the failure was within her control.

The court did not find that Ali violated the order by failing to disclose communications with Sharon Stovall, Yusuf Ramadan, or Tasha Holley, because the record did not establish that she possessed undisclosed responsive documents concerning those communications. The court also declined to sanction her for withholding name-change documents because the defendants had not moved to compel their production and the court had not ordered her to produce them. Instead, the court ordered her to provide the name-change documents to the court privately for review and to submit a sworn declaration from counsel addressing whether she had participated in litigation under her prior name.

Rulings and sanctions

The court declined to dismiss the case. Although Ali’s noncompliance was willful and lasted for months, she had eventually produced many of the outstanding documents, and the court found that lesser sanctions could address the resulting prejudice. The court also declined to preclude Ali from seeking front or back pay or from introducing evidence related to Rios, Graham, Stovall, Ramadan, or Holley.

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for discovery sanctions. It partially reopened fact discovery so the defendants could depose Ali a second time about issues raised by her late disclosures and could depose Rios and Graham. Ali was required to pay the defendants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for specified motion practice and those depositions. The defendants could cross-examine Ali at trial about deleting the job-rejection emails, and the jury could be instructed that it may draw an adverse inference from that deletion. The court also ordered the private production of the name-change documents and counsel’s sworn declaration. The case was not dismissed, and the court directed the parties to propose a schedule for summary-judgment briefing.