STEPP v. REXNORD INDUSTRIES, INC.

Filing 144

ORDER denying 103 and 125 Motions requesting the Court to use its inherent power to enforce sanctions and requesting sanctions against the defendant for discovery misconduct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/2/2014 (dist made) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

DAMON P. STEPP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REXNORD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________
Jay Meisenhelder,
Intervenor.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-00683-TWP-MJD

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the Court to Use Its
Inherent Power to Enforce Sanctions Against the Defendant and Its Counsel for Violation(s) of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule(s) 37, 26, and 16, [Dkt. 103 (“First Motion”)], and
Plaintiff’s Second Motion Requesting Sanctions Against the Defendant for Discovery
Misconduct and Federal Rule Violations (Rules 37 & 26) [Dkt. 125 (“Second Motion”)] For the
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.
I.

Background

Damon Stepp (“Plaintiff”) applied to Rexnord Industries (“Defendant”) for various
positions over the course of several years. [Dkt. 116 at 6.] On September 7, 2011, he applied for
one of five openings in Defendant’s Department 104 Assembly area. [Id.] Defendant did not hire
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claim

1

based on this decision. [Dkt. 1 at 2.] The EEOC denied the claim, [id. at 7], and Plaintiff filed the
current lawsuit, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [Id. at 2.]
On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Motion, [Dkt. 103], asking the Court to sanction
Defendant for violations of Rule 37, 26 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Id. at 1.]
Plaintiff claims that authenticated spreadsheets that Defendant submitted to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission were “manipulated and false.” [Id. at 2.] On August 15,
2014, Plaintiff filed his Second Motion, [Dkt. 125], again asking the Court to sanction Defendant
for violating Rule 37 and Rule 26. [Id. at 1.] In the interim, Defendant moved for summary
judgment. [Dkt. at 107.]
II.

Summary of Arguments

Plaintiff’s First Motion argues that Defendant violated Rule 26(g) by signing documents
certifying that the information Defendant provided to the EEOC was truthful. [Dkt. 103 at 2.]
He claims the spreadsheets that Defendant sent to the EEOC falsely indicated that several
employees had not been hired, when in fact Defendant had hired them. [Id. at 3.] He identifies
these individuals as “Jacob Barron, Martin M., Earl M., Joe S., and Mark Taylor.” [Id. at 6.]
Plaintiff then alleges violations of Rule 26(e) for Defendant’s purported failure to correct these
omissions, [id. at 5], and invokes the Court’s “inherent power” under Rule 37 to issue sanctions.
[Id. at 3.]
In his Second Motion, Plaintiff again alleges that Defendant has misrepresented its hiring
data. [Dkt. 125 at 2.] He claims Defendant originally reported to the EEOC that it had hired
Abigail Bell, Rhonda Dickerson, Kenneth Hankins, Dawn Herringer and Frank Kartoska to fill
the five positions for which Stepp applied. [Id. at 8.] He then claims that Defendant later asserted
during this litigation that Abigail Bell, Paula Collins, Kenneth Mark Hankins, Frank Kartoska

2

and DeWayne Thomas were hired for the five positions. [Id. at 9.] Because DeWayne Thomas—
like Plaintiff—is African-American, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has falsified the information
it submitted during this litigation to show that it hired a member of Plaintiff’s protected class,
thereby foreclosing Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination. [Id.]
Defendant responds to Plaintiff’s First Motion by arguing that Plaintiff never identified
any discovery responses that were inaccurate, [Dkt. 116 at 6], and that Defendant did not even
create the allegedly false spreadsheets Plaintiff claims were submitted to the EEOC. [Dkt. 116 at
10.] Defendant responds to Plaintiff’s Second Motion by claiming that it never misrepresented
the individuals who were hired to fill the positions for which Plaintiff applied. [Dkt. 131 at 4.]
III.

Discussion

A “court’s inherent power and Rule 37 supply it with broad authority to sanction parties
who abuse the discovery process.” Houston v. C.G. Sec. Servs., Inc., No. 1:12-CV-0328-WTLDML, 2014 WL 4636430, at *13 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 16, 2014). Such sanctions are “appropriate
where a party displays willfulness, bad faith, or fault in violating his discovery obligations,” but
any sanction “must be proportional to the abusive conduct.” Id.
Plaintiff’s first argument is that Defendant violated Rule 26 and Rule 37 by certifying
that allegedly false information Defendant provided to the EEOC was truthful. [Dkt. 103 at 2-6.]
This argument lacks merit. Plaintiff relies on the purportedly “manipulated and false”
spreadsheets Defendant submitted to the EEOC, [id. at 3], but as Defendant explains, it did not
create these spreadsheets. [Dkt. 116 at 9.] The (allegedly false) spreadsheets Plaintiff attached to
his First Motion contain 13 columns of information, including columns such as job applicants’
conviction status. [Dkt. 103 at Exhibit A.] The spreadsheets that Defendant actually submitted to
the EEOC were entirely different and lacked such information. [Dkt. 116 at 40-45.] The

3

spreadsheets in Plaintiff’s motion are instead work product created by EEOC investigators. [Dkt.
116 at 9, 29.] To the extent that the spreadsheets contain any inaccuracies, they are not the result
of Defendant’s conduct, and the spreadsheets therefore do not establish bad faith or abuse of the
discovery process on Defendant’s part.
In addition, the alleged inaccuracy is no inaccuracy at all. Plaintiff claims that the
spreadsheets show that Rexnord did not hire certain individuals when in fact Rexnord did hire
the individuals. [Dkt. 103 at 6.] The spreadsheets on which Plaintiff relies, however, indicate
only whether an applicant was hired for an “assembler” position such as the one for which
Plaintiff applied. [Dkt. 103 at Exhibit A] That Rexnord may have later hired the applicant for a
different position with the company is not inconsistent with the spreadsheet. Thus, even if the
individuals are now employees of Rexnord, the spreadsheet Plaintiff cites does not conflict with
this claim, and the spreadsheet provides no basis for his contention that Rexnord falsified data.
Plaintiff next argues that Defendant has falsified its submissions to this Court by stating
that it hired DeWayne Thomas to fill one of the five positions for which Plaintiff applied, despite
earlier representations to the EEOC that it did not hire Thomas. [Dkt. 125 at 2.] This claim is
baseless. With its motion for summary judgment, Defendant submitted a declaration by its
employee, Judy Heller. [Dkt. 128 at Exhibit 3.] Heller declared that she worked on Defendant’s
response to Plaintiff’s EEOC complaint, and that Defendant included DeWayne Thomas in the
list of hired applicants submitted to the EEOC. [Id.] Heller also responded to Plaintiff’s
allegations and specifically denied any knowledge that Defendant had omitted Thomas from the
list of hired applicants given to the EEOC. [Id.] As support for Ms. Heller’s declaration,
Defendant included a copy of its position statement to the EEOC, which included the hiring of
DeWayne Thomas. [Id.]

4

The facts thus contradict Plaintiff’s claims of misrepresentation. If Plaintiff wishes to
challenge the facts in Heller’s declaration, the proper vehicle is not a motion for sanctions. See
Caldwell-Gadson v. Thomson Multimedia, S.A., No. IP 99-1734-C-T/G, 2001 WL 1388052, at
*11 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2001). Without controverting these facts, nothing establishes any bad
faith, falsity, or abuse of the discovery process on Defendant’s part, and the Court sees no basis
for sanctioning Defendant. Plaintiff’s motions are therefore DENIED.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the Court
to Use Its Inherent Power to Enforce Sanctions Against the Defendant and Its Counsel for
Violation(s) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule(s) 37, 26, and 16, [Dkt. 103], and
Plaintiff’s Second Motion Requesting Sanctions Against the Defendant for Discovery
Misconduct and Federal Rule Violations (Rules 37 & 26). [Dkt. 125.]

Date: 10/02/2014

5

Distribution:
DAMON P. STEPP
8659 Rockville Road
Indianapolis, IN 46234
Jay Meisenhelder
EMPLOYMENT AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEGAL SERVICES
[e-mail]
Charles B. Baldwin
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
[e-mail]
Christopher C. Murray
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
[e-mail]
Michelle R. Maslowski
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
[e-mail]

6