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 reported their conduct. The defendants sought discovery sanctions after learning, more than two weeks after fact discovery closed, that Ali had not disclosed several categories of documents.

The disputed materials included text messages with people who knew about her work at Dainese or the facts of the case; emails showing that she had not received jobs for which she applied after leaving Dainese; documents concerning earlier civil lawsuits; and records concerning a prior name change. Ali produced some of the materials after the November 6, 2020 discovery deadline, including text messages in November 2020 and January 2021 and more than 200 pages of documents in May 2021. She also testified that she had deleted job-rejection emails.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the motion primarily as a request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, which allows sanctions for violating a scheduling or pretrial order. The court found that Ali violated the September 9, 2020 order requiring completion of fact discovery by November 6, 2020. It found that the order and the required categories of documents were clear, that Ali understood her obligations, and that her failure to produce the text messages, job-rejection notices, and documents concerning prior litigation was within her control. The court therefore found her noncompliance willful.

The court did not find that Ali violated the order by failing to produce documents about her name change. The defendants had not obtained an order requiring those documents, and the record did not establish that Ali possessed undisclosed text messages involving Sharon Stovall, Yusuf Ramadan, or Tasha Holley. The court nevertheless ordered Ali to provide the name-change documents privately for the court’s review, along with a sworn statement from her counsel addressing whether she had been involved in civil or criminal litigation under her prior name.

The court declined to dismiss the case. Although Ali’s noncompliance was willful and lasted for months, she later produced documents still in her possession, and the court found that lesser sanctions could address the defendants’ prejudice. The court also declined to preclude Ali from seeking front or back pay or from presenting evidence related to the people with whom she exchanged text messages.

Regarding the deleted job-rejection emails, the court applied Rule 37(e), which governs lost electronic information that should have been preserved for litigation. The court found that the deletion prejudiced the defendants because the emails concerned the extent of Ali’s efforts to reduce her damages. But it also found that Ali deleted the emails before filing the case, said she did so out of frustration, and had not acted with an intent to deprive the defendants of evidence. The court therefore rejected an adverse-inference instruction and found that allowing the defendants to present evidence of the deletion was sufficient.

Ruling and sanctions

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for discovery sanctions. The court denied the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the case or preclusion of Ali’s evidence concerning front pay, back pay, and the identified individuals.

The court granted the motion insofar as it sought reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and other appropriate relief. It partially reopened fact discovery so the defendants could depose Ali again about her late disclosures and depose Gilbert Rios and Brent Graham. Those depositions were to occur at Ali’s expense. The court also allowed the defendants to present evidence at trial that Ali deleted the electronic job-rejection notices.

The court further ordered Ali to provide, for the court’s private review, documents reflecting her name change and a sworn declaration from her counsel concerning any civil or criminal litigation under her prior name. The amended opinion superseded the court’s earlier October 29, 2021 opinion and order, including the earlier adverse-inference ruling.