Ondoua v. Montana State University et al

Filing 225

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 200 Motion for Sanctions. PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAILS. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 10/6/2020. (MMS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

ROGER N.M. ONDOUA,
CV-18-05-GF-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY, et
al,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Roger N.M. Ondoua filed a Complaint against Defendants Montana
State University, Charles Boyer, Barry Jacobsen, Deborah Barkley, Brandi Clark,
Shana Wold, Gadi Reddy, Julie Orcutt, Shad Chrisman, Julie Prewett, and John
Does 1−5. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions on August 28, 2020.
Doc. 200. Plaintiff asks this Court to exercise its inherent authority to sanction
Defendants. Doc. 202. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ conduct in discovery and
document preservation was deceptive and prejudicial. Id.

1

ANALYSIS
PERSONNEL FILES
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted deceptively when Defendants initially
withheld certain documents related to Montana State University personnel files.
Doc. 202 at 16−18. These documents include the following: (1) performance
evaluations for Defendants Miller, Reddy, Prewett, and Chrisman; (2) complaints
alleged against Defendant Prewett; (3) various ethics hotline cases alleged against
Defendant Reddy. Defendants initially objected to disclosing the documents,
arguing that Plaintiff’s discovery request was overly broad and in violation of the
individuals’ privacy. Doc. 146 at 20−21.
United States Magistrate Judge Johnston scheduled a hearing (Doc. 164) and
ordered Defendants to disclose the documents. Doc. 169. Defendants complied
with Judge Johnston’s order and disclosed the documents shortly afterwards.
Doc. 202 at 19−21. Plaintiff argues this practice was deceptive. Doc. 202. This
scenario presents a standard mechanism whereby a party objects to a discovery
request and the opposing party overcomes that objection. Plaintiff does not argue
that Defendants withheld the personnel files after Judge Johnston ordered them to
disclose the documents. Plaintiff argues only that Defendants initially withheld
these documents until this Court resolved their objection. Judge Johnston resolved
the any issue related to Montana State University’s personnel files when he
2

ordered Defendants to disclose them. This Court will not relitigate this discovery
issue again under the guise of sanctions.
SPOLIATION
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted deceptively when Defendants failed to
preserve certain documents properly for discovery. Those documents include the
following: (1) Plaintiff’s 2015 performance evaluation; (2) the meme placed on
Plaintiff’s office door; (3) Plaintiff’s email responses to the letters of warning that
MSU issued to him; and (4) the actual letter of warning that MSU issued to
Defendant Reddy. Doc. 202.
Defendants concede that they could not provide Plaintiff with the
documents. Defendants content that they did not act wrongfully. Doc. 212 at 8.
Defendants claim that Plaintiff already possessed copies of his 2015 performance
evaluation, the meme, and his email responses to Plaintiff’s letters of warning.
Doc. 212 at 14−16. Defendants do not dispute the authenticity of Plaintiff’s
copies. Defendants also claim that they provided Plaintiff with a draft of
Defendant Reddy’s letter of warning instead of the actual letter because the actual
letter had been delivered to Defendant Reddy. Id. Defendants do not contest the
authenticity of the draft letter and do not allege any differences exist between the
draft preserved and the actual letter delivered to Defendant Reddy. Id.

3

Plaintiff seeks various jury instructions to invite the jury to draw negative
inferences from Defendants’ inability to produce these documents.
Doc 202 at 31−32. Negative-inference jury instructions prove unnecessary. The
jury will not need to infer the content of the documents. Plaintiff has copies of his
2015 performance evaluation, the meme, and his email responses to MSU’s letter
of warning. Defendants do not contest at this time the authenticity of these copies.
Defendants conduct proves less than ideal. To ensure that Defendants do not
benefit from their failure to preserve these documents, the Court will take the
following steps: (1) Defendants shall not be allowed later to challenge the
authenticity of any of these documents at trial; and (2) Defendants shall not be
allowed later to argue that the draft of Defendant Reddy’s letter of warning differs
from the actual letter that MSU delivered to Defendant Reddy.
INCOMPLETE DISCOVERY.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acted deceptively when Defendants failed to
provide the following: (1) MSU phone logs in a readable format; (2) Defendant
Jacobsen’s complete notebook; and (3) written documentation related to the
meetings that Defendants conducted when deciding whether to renew Plaintiff’s
employment contract. Doc. 202.
Defendants claim that they have provided all of the documents in their
possession. Doc. 212. Specifically, Defendants claim that they provided Plaintiff
4

with MSU’s phone logs in the only format available and all of Jacobsen’s notes in
their possession. Id. at 16−18. Defendants also claim they did not disclose
documents related to the meetings because no notes were taken during those
meetings.
This Court dealt with the issue of MSU’s phone logs at oral argument.
Doc. 217. This Court ordered Defendants either to disclose the relevant phone logs
in a readable format, or if that proves impossible, to produce an affidavit
documenting the steps Defendants have taken to obtain readable phone logs. Id.
Defendants filed an affidavit after unsuccessfully pursuing readable phone logs in a
readable format. Doc. 220.
Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendants currently are
withholding documents related to Jacobsen’s notes or Defendants’ meetings.
Defendants claim that no written memorialization of those meetings exist.
Defendants claim that they disclosed all available notes from Jacobsen’s notebook.
Without evidence that Defendants are continuing to conceal those documents,
sanctions are not appropriate.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is
DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

5

Defendants shall not challenge at trial the authenticity of Plaintiff’s copy of
Plaintiff’s 2015 performance evaluation.
Defendants shall not challenge at trial the authenticity of Plaintiff’s copy of
the meme.
Defendants shall not challenge at trial the authenticity of Plaintiff’s copy of
Plaintiff’s email responses to Plaintiff’s letter of warning.
Defendants shall not challenge at trial the authenticity of the draft of
Defendant Reddy’s letter of warning.
Defendants shall not argue at trial that the draft of Defendant Reddy’s letter
of warning differ from the actual letter MSU sent to Defendant Reddy.
Dated this 6th day of October, 2020.

6