Suarez v. Liquid Blue, Inc.

Background

Alvin Suarez brought this putative class action against Liquid Blue, Inc., alleging that Liquid Blue failed to provide blind and visually impaired people equal access to goods and services through its website. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. This order did not decide those underlying claims.

The order concerned discovery. Suarez served discovery requests and a deposition notice on January 5, 2024. At a March 6 initial conference, the court directed Liquid Blue to respond to the outstanding discovery by March 20 and coordinate Suarez’s deposition during the week of March 25. After Liquid Blue did not comply, Suarez moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel discovery. The court treated that motion as unopposed and granted it on April 16, directing Liquid Blue to produce responsive documents, answer interrogatories (written questions), and identify its deposition witnesses by April 19.

Liquid Blue still did not comply. After Suarez notified the court, the court ordered Liquid Blue to explain by May 3 why sanctions should not be imposed. Liquid Blue did not respond. On May 6, Suarez requested sanctions and new discovery deadlines.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 37 allows a court to impose sanctions when a party fails to obey a discovery order. Possible sanctions include requiring facts to be treated as established, barring evidence or claims, striking pleadings, staying proceedings, dismissing claims, entering default judgment, or treating the violation as contempt. The rule also requires an award of reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the failure unless the failure was substantially justified or another circumstance makes an award unjust.

The court found that Liquid Blue had failed to comply with several discovery orders and had not shown cause for that failure. It concluded that monetary sanctions were appropriate because Liquid Blue had notice of the orders and the possibility of sanctions, the noncompliance had continued for nearly three months, the delay had prolonged the case, and Suarez had incurred additional costs. The court stated that neither substantial justification nor another circumstance making an award unjust applied.

Order

The court ordered Liquid Blue to pay Suarez’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to obtain the discovery to which Suarez was entitled. The court did not set the amount in this order. It directed Suarez to file a supported fee application by May 21, 2024; Liquid Blue could respond by June 4, 2024; and Suarez could reply by June 11, 2024. The court also directed Liquid Blue to respond to the outstanding discovery requests by May 21, 2024, and noted that additional sanctions could be warranted if Liquid Blue continued not to comply.