Figueroa v. W.M. Barr & Company, Inc.

Background

Marilyn Figueroa brought a product-liability action against W.M. Barr & Company, Inc. after a fire started while she was using Goof-Off Pro Strength Remover to remove glue beneath floor tiles in her kitchen. She alleged, among other things, that Goof-Off was defectively designed, that the product’s warnings were inadequate, and that the defendant was negligent in designing the product and providing warnings. The defendant maintained that Figueroa did not follow warnings concerning ventilation, the amount of product used, and turning off a pilot light.

Figueroa’s counsel told the court that an expert would testify that the product’s flashpoint was too low and that it ignited when Figueroa used a wood scraper. No expert report was provided. The opinion states that expert evidence was important to Figueroa’s design-defect claim.

Discovery Violations

The court found that Figueroa failed to meet multiple discovery obligations. She provided late responses to interrogatories and document requests, submitted incomplete responses that required court intervention, and did not timely provide a required verification. She also gave deposition testimony that contradicted sworn interrogatory responses concerning whether she had read the product’s warnings or instructions.

The court repeatedly asked Figueroa to explain her design-defect theory and eventually ordered her to provide that explanation to the defendant. She did not timely comply. After the deadline for expert reports was extended, she also missed the extended deadline and never supplied an expert report. Figueroa and her counsel additionally failed to respond to a defense letter by the required deadline and failed to appear at a scheduled pre-motion conference. Counsel did not file the required opposition to the sanctions motion or request more time.

Legal Standard

The court analyzed the requested sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), which allows sanctions when a party fails to obey a discovery order. Possible sanctions include preventing a party from supporting claims or defenses with specified evidence, striking pleadings, staying the case, dismissing claims, or entering a default judgment. Rule 37(b)(2)(C) also generally requires an award of reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the violation unless the failure was substantially justified or an award would otherwise be unjust.

The court explained that a magistrate judge has broad authority to impose discovery sanctions. It considered the history of noncompliance, the time given to comply, whether lesser sanctions would work, warnings and opportunities to respond, prejudice to the defendant, the availability of the missing information, and Figueroa’s personal responsibility.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the defendant’s motion for sanctions. The court found that Figueroa had repeatedly violated discovery deadlines and court orders, that lesser sanctions would not adequately address the misconduct, and that the defendant was prejudiced because it could not fully prepare its defense without a timely expert report. The court also found that Figueroa’s contradictory sworn discovery response and deposition testimony reflected bad faith in preparing the interrogatory responses.

The defendant requested dismissal of the case, or alternatively an order preventing Figueroa from using expert reports. The court found dismissal too severe because Figueroa had participated to some extent in discovery and had other claims subject to a pending motion for summary judgment. The court therefore precluded Figueroa from relying on or introducing any expert reports in response to that motion or at trial.

The court also required Figueroa’s counsel—not Figueroa—to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the sanctions motion, several motions to compel, and Figueroa’s failure to appear at the November conference. The defendant was ordered to submit a supported application for those fees and costs by March 16, 2020, and Figueroa was given until March 30, 2020, to respond. The clerk was directed to terminate the sanctions motion.