A magistrate judge from the Northern District of Illinois has denied the request of a high school coach to impose severe sanctions against a school district, which allegedly hired and fired him, for discovery violations associated with his subsequent discrimination claim.
While acknowledging that the district should have done a better job of disclosing relevant materials, the court nonetheless found that the only sanctions the district should incur is the reimbursement of the legal fees the plaintiff incurred in filing the motion.
Plaintiff Fred R. Jacobeit sued Rich Township High School District 227 and Rich Central Principal Maceo Rainey, alleging he was hired as the assistant girl’s basketball coach for Rich Central High School, and then unlawfully fired two weeks later based on his race, age and disability.
The defendants countered that the school board never officially hired Jacobeit for the position.
Regardless, on the way to determining the merits of the case, the parties got bogged down in a discovery dispute.
Specifically, the plaintiff asked the court to impose sanctions for various discovery violations, including an order “directing the fact that Jacobeit was officially hired be taken as established,” and prohibiting the district from introducing any testimony that contradicts that fact; and (2) costs and attorneys’ fees for prosecuting the motions for sanctions, as well as plaintiff’s prior motion to compel. Alternatively, the plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order allowing an independent computer analyst to conduct a forensic examination of the district’s computers to discover previous versions of relevant documents and e-mails.
The court distilled the plaintiff’s motions into “three distinct issues: (1) whether defendants’ untimely disclosure of certain documents warrants sanctions; (2) whether the District’s undisputed destruction of an audio tape recording amounts to spoliation and warrants sanctions; and (3) whether defendants failed to take the appropriate steps to properly preserve relevant e-mails in this matter and, if so, whether that failure is sanctionable.”
The court tended to side with the defendants on the first point, finding that the district did not violate its duties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “The District’s delay in producing the form did not so severely prejudice the plaintiff as to warrant the evidentiary and exclusionary sanctions he seeks.” That said, the court was willing to award the plaintiff another opportunity to re-depose key witnesses because of the untimely disclosures.
As for the spoliation question, the court did agree with the plaintiff that the District’s destruction of the audio tape of a closed-door meeting had an impact. “However, it does not necessarily follow that the District’s destruction of the tape warrants sanctions,” wrote the court, noting that the requisite willfulness, bad faith, or fault associated with the action was missing. Marrocco v. General Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 220, 224 (7th Cir.1992).
“Not only was the tape destroyed pursuant to the district’s normal document destruction policy, we do not find it entirely unreasonable that, at the time of destruction, the District believed any discussions regarding the grievance to be unrelated to plaintiff’s allegations of race, age, and disability discrimination in this action,” wrote the court.
Turning to the District’s failure to preserve emails, the court found that the district had such a duty. However, its failure “does not amount to willfulness or bad faith, as there is no indication that the defendants sought to hide adverse evidence.”
The court went on to write that the plaintiff suffered “minimal.” It did find that the plaintiff should have the “ability to question the authors and recipients of those e-mails.”
Finally, the court denied the plaintiff’s request to have a forensic analyst inspect the district computers for any additional e-mails.
“The district’s supplemental brief reveals that the estimated monetary burden of such an inspection – $51,000 – greatly outweighs the minimal likelihood that it would reveal additional relevant evidence,” wrote the court. “However, we find that it was the defendants’ haphazard and delayed approach to electronic discovery that required plaintiff to file the instant motions for sanctions to determine whether relevant evidence was in fact preserved in this litigation. Thus, we conclude that the district should bear the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff in filing his motions and reply brief in support thereof.”
Fred R. Jacobeit v. Rich Township High School District 227 and Maceo M. Rainey; N.D. Ill; No. 09 CV 1924; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56222; 5/25/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Laurie Marie Burgess, LEAD ATTORNEY, Burgess Law Offices, P.C., Chicago, IL; Lori Ann Benavides, Law Office Of Lori A. Benavides, Chicago, IL. (for defendant) Jacqueline Marie Litra, Paulette A. Petretti, Scariano, Himes and Petrarca, Chtd., Chicago, IL; Jeffrey S. Taylor, Mark A Lichtenwalter, Tricia Mary Pellegrini, Spesia, Ayers & Ardaugh, Joliet, Il; Paul J. Ciastko, Scariano, Himes and Petrarca, Chicago, IL.
