Perez v. Escobar Construction, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against Escobar Construction, Inc. and the other defendants. They appeared to rely primarily on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), which allows sanctions for failing to obey a court order. The plaintiffs argued that Escobar had not fully complied with an order requiring information identifying construction workers, painters, laborers, finishers, and supervisors employed by the defendants who worked at the Binghamton or Ithaca sites.

The plaintiffs appeared to contend that Escobar’s lists omitted supervisors and other workers. They also relied on Escobar’s affidavit stating that he had complied with the order and quoted deposition testimony in support of their motion.

Reasons for the ruling

The court identified several problems with the motion. First, the notice of motion did not specify the rules or statutes supporting the request, as required by Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(1). Second, the plaintiffs’ legal memoranda contained many factual assertions without citations to separately filed materials, contrary to the court’s individual practices. The opening memorandum’s fact section consisted largely of deposition quotations and did not explain or organize the evidence.

The court also found that the motion did not clearly establish a violation. Rule 56(h), which the plaintiffs mentioned, did not apply because no summary-judgment motion had been filed. Rule 26 did not itself provide the sanctions mechanism; Rule 37 did. The deposition testimony did not sufficiently show that the employee lists were inadequate. The court rejected any argument that Escobar had to provide lists of subcontractors’ employees because the order covered only people employed by the defendants. The record did not establish that workers mentioned in the deposition were employees of a defendant.

As to supervisors, the court said part of Escobar’s testimony could be read to suggest that supervisors were intentionally omitted from an initial list, but it was unclear whether the testimony concerned supervisors at the two relevant sites. The record did not clearly show a deliberate violation. The court also stated that sanctioning an unintentional omission that was later corrected would not be just, and it could not find that Escobar still possessed undisclosed information about supervisors employed by the defendants at those sites.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, Docket No. 133. The denial rested both on the motion’s procedural defects and on the plaintiffs’ failure to provide a sufficiently clear record showing that Escobar violated the court’s order.

Note on the judge information

The opinion identifies Gabriel W. Gorenstein as the United States Magistrate Judge who issued and signed the order. The supplied metadata lists Laura Swain as the judge, creating a conflict.