Williams v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 35 Motion to Enforce Court Order. IT IS ORDERED that, within 7 days, defendant provide plaintiff with an entire copy of its "Policies and Procedure Manual," and any other documents that are responsive to plaint iff's Requests for Production H and J. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the depositions of plaintiff and defendant's store manager be held on a date no earlier than two business days after plaintiff's receipt of the foregoing documents/ sup plemental responses. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant and/or its counsel remit the single sum of $1000 to plaintiff, via her counsel, and file proof of payment in the record within 7 days thereafter,. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 2/8/16. (crt,Crawford, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
DEANNE WILLIAMS
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0112
VERSUS
*
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.
*
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, is a
motion to enforce court order pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
associated request for sanctions, attorney’s fees and/or costs [doc. # 35] filed by plaintiff
DeAnne Williams. The motion is opposed. For reasons assigned below, the motion is
GRANTED.1
Background
On September 14, 2015, plaintiff DeAnne Williams served defendant Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc. (“Hobby Lobby”) with her First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Documents,
which included the following, pertinent requests:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION H:
Please produce a copy of the Hobby Lobby employee handbook/manual in effect
on November 27, 2013, for the Hobby Lobby Store located at 200 Blanchard
Drive, West Monroe, Louisiana.
1
As this motion is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor
dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the
standing order of this court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with
Rule 72(a) and L.R. 74.1(W).
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION I:
Please provide a copy of any and all training manuals, videos, written policies
and/or procedures, or any other instructive material regarding the placement of
merchandise on shelves ro the stocking of shelves with merchandise by store
associates.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION J:
Please provide a copy of any and all training manuals, videos, written policies
and/or procedures, or any other instructive material regarding the cleaning,
inspection, and maintenance and floors by store associates.
(M/Compel, Exh. 1 [doc. # 28]).
On November 6, 2015, Hobby Lobby served Williams with its supplemental responses to the
requests at issue:
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION H:
Defendant objects to Request for Production H as discovery is ongoing and on
grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to
that objection and without waiver of same, see attached relevant portions of the
Hobby Lobby Manual regarding Merchandising & Maintenance as well as Risk
Management & Safety. Defendant reserves the right to supplement and/or amend
this response.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION I:
Defendant objects to Request for Production I as discovery is ongoing and on
grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to
that objection and without waiver of same, please see the Good Housekeeping
Video Transcript, attached. Defendant reserves the right to supplement and/or
amend this response.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION J:
See Supplemental Response to Request for Production J [sic].
(M/Compel, Exh. 3 [doc. # 28]).
Dissatisfied with Hobby Lobby’s responses to these discovery requests (plus other
2
responses to requests not at issue here), and after exhausting efforts to amicably bridge their
differences, Williams filed a motion to compel on December 24, 2015. [doc. # 28]. The motion
sought an order requiring Hobby Lobby to produce, inter alia, (1) a complete copy of Hobby
Lobby’s employee handbook in effect at the time of plaintiff's injury; and (2) a copy of the “Good
Housekeeping” employee training video. [doc. # 28]. In its opposition to the motion to compel,
Hobby Lobby represented that it already had produced the only portions of the “Employee
Handbook” that were relevant to plaintiff’s slip and fall claim. (Opp Memo., pg. 6 [doc. # 31]).
On January 12, 2016, pursuant to a conference with the parties, the undersigned granted
Williams’ motion to compel and directed Hobby Lobby, inter alia, to provide plaintiff by
January 22, 2016, with a complete copy of its “employee handbook” and a copy of its “Good
Housekeeping video.” (Jan. 12, 2016, Minutes of Proceedings [doc. # 32]). However, in lieu of
producing a full copy of the actual manual from which it had produced the two sections in partial
response to plaintiff’s request for production H that had sparked the motion to compel, Hobby
Lobby unilaterally opted to produce a completely different document, entitled “Employee
Handbook,” in purported literal compliance with the court’s ruling. When plaintiff’s counsel
brought the discrepancy to the attention of defense counsel, the latter agreed to a brief
continuance of scheduled depositions so plaintiff could file an appropriate motion with the court.
On January 25, 2016, Williams filed the instant motion to enforce the court’s January 12,
2016, ruling. Williams requested an order requiring Hobby Lobby to produce a complete copy of
the document that Hobby Lobby previously had referred to as its “employee handbook” (and any
other documents responsive to Request H); that the scheduled depositions of plaintiff and
defendant’s store manager occur at least two business days after plaintiff’s receipt of the
3
responsive documents; and that the court award appropriate Rule 37 sanctions.2
In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defense counsel explained that he
was operating under the mistaken belief that the portions of the document
originally produced (the “Policies and Procedures Manual”) was in fact the
Employee Handbook. It was not until the Court order was issued, ordering Hobby
Lobby to produce the “Employee Handbook”, did undersigned learn that the
original document produced was the Policies and Procedures Manual, not the
Employee Handbook.
(Def. Opp. Memo., pg. 2).
Hobby Lobby conceded that it was willing to produce the Policies and Procedures Manual, but
asked the court to review the document, in camera, to assess relevancy, or alternatively, issue an
order subjecting the Policies and Procedures Manual to the Stipulated Non-Sharing Protective
Order. Id.3
In her reply, plaintiff’s counsel noted, inter alia, that since the filing of the present
motion, defense counsel had notified her that there was a more recent version of the Policies and
Procedures Manual than the one from which Hobby Lobby had produced the earlier excerpts.
See Jan. 27, 2016, email from Kathryn Trew to Julie Johnson; Pl. Reply Memo., Exh. A. The
new version of the excerpted sections omitted any reference to “Safety Sweeps.” (Pl. Reply
Memo., pg. 3-4). In other words, according to its discovery responses, Hobby Lobby has no
written policies regarding periodic cleaning, inspection, and maintenance of floors during
business hours while customers are in the store. Id. Plaintiff understandably remains concerned
2
Plaintiff further noted that she did not receive a copy of the Good Housekeeping video
until Monday, January 25.
3
Defense counsel also explained that he delivered the Good Housekeeping video to
FedEx for overnight delivery on Thursday, January 21. However, FedEx did not attempt and
effect delivery until Monday, January 25. (FedEx Printout; Def. Opp. Memo., Exh. A [doc. #
40]).
4
that Hobby Lobby may not be producing a written policy regarding floor inspection merely
because the document may be labeled something else. Consequently, plaintiff seeks an order
compelling Hobby Lobby to produce complete copies of both versions of its “Policy and
Procedures Manual,” as well as any other documents responsive to its Requests for Production H
and J.
In its sur-reply, Hobby Lobby objects to production of the earlier version of its Policies
and Procedures Manual because it was superseded by the newer version, and thus no longer in
effect on the date of the accident. (Def. Sur-reply, pgs. 2-3). Hobby Lobby further maintains that
it does not have any other documents responsive to plaintiff’s Request for Production H. Id.
Hobby Lobby, however, did not address plaintiff’s re-urged Request for Production J.
Applicable Rules
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifies that,
[i]f a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent . . . fails to obey an
order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or
37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They
may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated
facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing
party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in
evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
5
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an
order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A).
Furthermore,
[i]nstead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient
party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially
justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C).
In addition,
[i]f a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule
26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply
evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially
justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on
motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard:
(A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
caused by the failure;
(B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and
(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(I)-(vi).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
Analysis
Hobby Lobby well knew that plaintiff’s motion to compel sought a complete copy of the
document from which Hobby Lobby had produced certain excerpts. Throughout the prosecution,
defense, and resolution of plaintiff’s motion to compel, the parties and the court referred to the
document as the “employee handbook.” After the court issued its ruling, Hobby Lobby
discovered that the document sought by plaintiff was not the “employee handbook,” but instead
an earlier version of the “Policies and Procedures Manual.” Rather than produce the document
contemplated by all parties and the court, Hobby Lobby cavalierly produced a different document
6
that was entitled “employee handbook.” In so doing, Hobby Lobby neither proactively notified
opposing counsel, nor sought clarification from the court; it simply shifted the onus to plaintiff to
petition the court for further relief.
The court finds that defendant’s myopic interpretation of the court’s January 12 ruling is
not well-taken and disingenuous. Furthermore, defendant’s apparent indifference to the
document discrepancy presents a matter of concern. The court stresses that the
[t]he overriding theme of recent amendments to the discovery rules has been open
and forthright sharing of information by all parties to a case with the aim of
expediting case progress, minimizing burden and expense, and removing
contentiousness as much as practicable. Compliance with these changes has
placed—on counsel—the affirmative duties to work with clients to make required
disclosures; reduce oppression and burden; cooperatively plan discovery with
opposing counsel; affirmatively certify accuracy and good faith in requesting and
responding to discovery; and confer with opposing counsel to resolve disputes
before filing certain motions . . . If counsel fail in this responsibility—willfully or
not—these principles of an open discovery process are undermined, coextensively
inhibiting the courts' ability to objectively resolve their clients' disputes and the
credibility of its resolution.
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Nebraska v. BASF Corp., 2007 WL 3342423, at *5 (D. Neb. Nov. 5,
2007) (internal citations omitted).
Hobby Lobby has failed to meet its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and has blithely risked the consequences of an untenable and unjustified interpretation
of the court’s discovery order. Accordingly, beyond granting plaintiff’s motion to enforce the
discovery order, the court also will order defendant and its counsel to pay movant the total sum
of $1,000 as reasonable attorney’s fees to ameliorate the reasonable expenses, fees, and costs
incurred by movant for having to file this successive motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C).
Conclusion
For the above-assigned reasons,
7
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to enforce court order and associated request for
sanctions, fees, and/or costs [doc. # 35] is GRANTED, as follows,
IT IS ORDERED that, within 7 days from the date of this order, defendant Hobby Lobby
shall provide plaintiff with an entire copy of its “Policies and Procedures Manual,” both the
version that was produced, in part, on November 6, 2015, as well as the version that was
produced, in part, on January 27, 2016.4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 7 days from the date of this order, defendant
Hobby Lobby shall provide plaintiff with any other documents that are responsive to plaintiff’s
Requests for Production H and J. If defendant has no other responsive documents, it shall
expressly supplement or amend its responses to that effect, within the same period.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the depositions of plaintiff and defendant’s store
manager shall be held on a date no earlier than two business days after plaintiff’s receipt of the
foregoing documents/supplemental responses.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Hobby Lobby and/or its counsel shall remit
the single sum of $1,000 to plaintiff DeAnne Williams, via her counsel, and file proof of
payment in the record of these proceedings within 7 days thereafter.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 8th day of February 2016.
__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
The court declines defendant’s invitation to review the documents in camera.
Defendant may subject the documents to the stipulated protective order by so designating them
on its own. See Stipulated Non-Sharing Protective Order [doc. # 34].
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?