Nathan v. Ohio State University et al

Filing 149

ORDER Overruling 139 Plt's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's May 23, 2013 Discovery Order. Defendants shall comply with the discovery requirements no later than JUNE 28, 2013. The Court sets JULY 12, 2013, as the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 6/14/2013. (lvw1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NADIA NATHAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:10-CV-872
JUDGE SMITH
Magistrate Judge Deavers

v.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants The Ohio State University and The Ohio
State University Medical Center’s (collectively “Defendants” or “OSU”) Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s May 23, 2013 Discovery Order (Doc. 139), which granted in part and denied
in part Plaintiff’s April 2, 2013 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. The Magistrate Judge’s
May 23, 2013 Discovery Order directed OSU to “produce all performance-related documents for
Plaintiff and her comparators, without regard to whether the documents are stored electronically,
housed in Dr. Harter’s office, or utilized in annual evaluations” within 30 days of the date of the
order (Doc. 135). The Magistrate Judge further ordered Defendants and Defense Counsel to pay
Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with bringing her Motion to Compel as well as
fees associated with pursuit of performance-related documents subsequent to the Magistrate
Judge’s October 29, 2012 Discovery Order. On May 24, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and Clarification asking the Court to reconsider the order of sanctions against
OSU and its counsel and to clarify the Court’s Discovery Order of May 23, 2013 (Doc. 136).1

1

The Magistrate Judge has denied the Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification.

Defendants then filed a Motion to Stay, which was denied by this Court (Doc. 138). On the
same day, OSU filed its Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s May 23, 2013 Discovery Order.
OSU’s Objections are fully briefed and ripe for review.2
When a party files timely objections to a magistrate judge’s opinion and order concerning
a nondispositive matter, the district judge “must consider [these] objections and modify or set
aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
The “clearly erroneous” standard applies only to factual findings made by the magistrate judge,
while legal conclusions will be reviewed under the more lenient “contrary to law” standard.
Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff’d., 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994).
“A finding is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” In re Search Warrants Issued Aug. 29, 1994,
889 F. Supp. 296, 298 (S.D. Ohio 1995). Under the “contrary to law” standard, should the court
determine on plenary review that the decision of the magistrate judge ignores or contradicts the
law, or governing Rules of Civil Procedure, it should be rejected. Id.
By its Objections, OSU argues that the Magistrate Judge’s May 23, 2013 Discovery
Order erroneously concluded that it did not comply with the Magistrate Judge’s October 29,
2012 Discovery Order because it has produced all documents/data requested in and the subject of
Plaintiff’s original Motion to Compel Discovery and every document or other data actually used
to evaluate the performance of Plaintiff and her comparators. OSU argues that the Magistrate
Judge’s May 23, 2013 Discovery Order erroneously requires it to produce documents neither
requested nor identified by Plaintiff’s original Motion to Compel Discovery and further
2

Defendants request oral argument on their Objections. However, the Court finds that
oral argument is not essential to resolve Defendants’ Objections. Thus, Defendants’ request for
oral argument is DENIED.
2

erroneously requires it to guess as to what documents it was required to produced. OSU argues
that it cannot produce the documents in the 30 days ordered by the Magistrate Judge. Finally,
OSU argues that the sanction of attorneys’ fees is clearly erroneous because it has cooperated in
discovery and acted in good faith responding to the Plaintiff’s discovery requests and in
complying with the Magistrate Judge’s October 29, 2012 Discovery Order.
In response, Plaintiff argues that OSU’s Objections are essentially reiterations of
arguments previously asserted and rejected by this Court. Plaintiff further argues that the Court
should not be persuaded by OSU’s attempt to disingenuously dodge its obligations under the
October 29, 2012 Discovery Order by “claiming that what Plaintiff asks for is just too much and
they do not know what she wants.” (Doc. 143 at 12).
OSU’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s May 23, 2013 Discovery Order are rooted in
its misguided approach to its discovery obligations in this case. As OSU recognizes in its
memorandum in support of its pending Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification: “There is
a significant disconnect going on in this case. Plaintiff and the Court appear to be operating
under a totally different understanding of the discovery at issue in this case than OSU.” (Doc.
136 at 2). That is exactly correct, and this “disconnect” is a consequence of OSU’s failure to
comply with the directions of the Court. OSU continues to proceed in a divergent manner,
despite the Magistrate Judge repeatedly, and straightforwardly, setting forth what is required of
OSU. That OSU does not agree with the Magistrate Judge’s articulation of the discovery issue,
or the Court’s previous disposition of OSU’s challenge to its discovery obligations, does not
necessitate further consideration or clarification, or excuse a failure to comply with the Court’s
discovery order. OSU’s insistence that the October 29, 2012 Discovery Order only compelled it
to produce documents that Plaintiff specifically identified or that were actually used for
3

performance evaluations was correctly rejected by the Magistrate Judge. As OSU recognized in
its Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s October 29, 2012 Discovery Order, that Order required
OSU to produce all performance-related documents for Plaintiff and her comparators.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s contention that the pending Objections are simply
repackaged arguments previously considered and rejected by the Court. When OSU filed
Objections to its discovery obligations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s October 29, 2012
Discovery Order, it challenged the breadth of the discovery obligation as well as the imposed
timetable of production. The Court rejected OSU’s challenge to the October 29, 2012 Discovery
Order, specifically finding as unpersuasive OSU’s challenge to the breadth of the production
requirement and the deadline imposed for that requirement. Furthermore, the Court notes that,
while the Court briefly stayed the document production requirement pending resolution of
OSU’s Objections to the October 29, 2012 Discovery Order, OSU has otherwise been under the
document production requirement since the October 29, 2012 Discovery Order.
Moreover, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s decision to impose an
attorneys’ fees sanction on OSU and its counsel for their failures to comply with the Court’s
discovery orders. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) authorizes a court to require a
disobedient party, the attorneys advising that party, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorneys’ fees, caused by a failure to obey a discovery order, “unless the failure was
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Such an order
may be imposed “[i]nstead of or in addition to” other sanctions, including dismissal. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2). Because OSU’s disobedience of the Court’s discovery orders was not justified,
and considering the absence of circumstances making the award unjust, the Magistrate Judge
was authorized to impose an attorneys’ fees sanction. This is one of the Court’s older cases, and
4

it has proceeded long enough at the discovery stage. Any further disobedience of the Court’s
discovery orders in this case will result in even harsher sanctions.
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s May 23, 2013 Discovery Order in light of
Plaintiff’s Objections, and finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order is neither clearly
erroneous, nor contrary to law. See U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. 72(a). The Court
therefore OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s May 23, 2013
Discovery Order and AFFIRMS said order. Absent a successful motion demonstrating good
cause for an extension, Defendants shall comply with the discovery requirements no later than
JUNE 28, 2013. The Court sets JULY 12, 2013, as the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants may file a reply memorandum within
fourteen days after Plaintiff files her Memorandum in Opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ George C. Smith
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5