Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.

Background

Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. It alleged that Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. had failed to comply with several discovery requests, failed to produce a privilege log identifying documents withheld as protected from disclosure, and failed to identify responsive documents within its production. Expeditors opposed the motion, arguing that it had complied with Starr’s discovery requests and that any remaining disputes should be handled through the parties’ meet-and-confer process.

Legal standard

The court explained that it has broad discretion to impose sanctions when a party disobeys discovery orders. Rule 37 requires sanctions to be fair and proportionate to the violation. The court considered factors including whether the failure was deliberate, whether lesser sanctions would be effective, how long the failure lasted, and whether the party had notice that sanctions might be imposed.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Starr had not provided compelling evidence that Expeditors failed to comply with the discovery requests. The court further concluded that, to the extent any noncompliance occurred, Starr had not shown that it was deliberate or violated a court order. Starr also had not shown that Expeditors’ conduct was ongoing, resulted from bad faith, or occurred despite notice that sanctions were possible.

The court noted that it had contemplated the possibility of additional discovery disputes and had set November 15, 2019, as the deadline for Starr to file a motion to compel. Starr did not file that motion, and the deadline had passed.

Disposition

The court denied Starr’s motion for sanctions. It directed the parties to comply with the deadlines in the July 8, 2019 Case Management Plan and to proceed with the deposition scheduled for December 4, 2019.