Ross et al v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. et al

Filing 50

Opinion and Order granting 45 Motion to Enforce Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 3/07/12. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CANDICE ROSS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Civil Action 2:10-CV-1098
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King

CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action in which plaintiffs, who are AfricanAmerican,

claim

that

defendants

Choice

Hotels

International,

Inc.

[hereinafter “Choice Hotels”], a franchisor, and GNA Properties LLC
[hereinafter “GNA”], the franchisee of a hotel in Columbus,

Ohio,

discriminated against plaintiffs on account of their race in violation
of 42 U.S.C. §1981 and O.R.C. §4112.02(G) and acted in breach of the
parties’ contract for the rental of a room.

This matter is now before

the Court on plaintiffs’ renewed motion to enforce the Court’s prior
discovery order and for sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ Re-Newed Motion to

Enforce the Court’s Order (Doc. No. 20) and for Sanctions Against
Defendant

GNA

Properties

LLC,

Doc.

No.

45

[“Renewed

Motion

for

Sanctions”].
This litigation has been marked by the failure of defendant GNA to
participate in the discovery process.

On June 27, 2011, the Court

ordered GNA to make its Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and to respond to all
outstanding discovery requests no later than July 1, 2011.

Order, Doc.

No. 20, p. 1.
comply

with

sanctions,

The Court also expressly advised GNA that its failure to
the

Court’s

including

counterclaims.”

Id.

order

possible

“will

result

default

in

and

the

imposition

dismissal

of

of
its

Plaintiff and defendant Choice Hotels thereafter

filed motions for sanctions, representing that GNA had failed to comply
with the Court’s order.

GNA made no response to those motions.

The

Court granted the motions and awarded to plaintiffs and Choice Hotels
their expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the grant
of their motions.

Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 44.

The Court declined

to impose more severe sanctions, however, in light of the parties’
representation “that GNA had committed to complying with its discovery
obligations and no party has advised the Court that GNA has not done so.”
Id., at 5.
The Renewed Motion for Sanctions was filed on January 4, 2012.

In

that motion, plaintiffs represented that GNA had not provided the
requested discovery.

In its response to the motion, filed January 18,

2012, GNA explained that its earlier failure to fully participate in the
litigation was driven by business and financial considerations but that
it was now committed to full participation in the litigation.

GNA also

specifically represented that it had “produced its discovery response to
Plaintiffs by mail and electronically filed its Initial Disclosures.”
Response of Defendant GNA Properties, LLC to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion
to Enforce and for Sanctions (Doc. #45), Doc. No. 46, p. 1. By January
24, 2012, however, plaintiffs had not received GNA’s responses to their
discovery requests. Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Renewed Motion to
Enforce and For Sanctions, Doc. No. 47, p. 1.

2

Moreover, the parties’

joint to request to extend the discovery completion date, Joint Motion
to Amend Discovery Deadlines, Doc. No. 48, suggests that GNA’s discovery
responses had not been received by January 31, 2012.

Id., at 1. The

Renewed Motion for Sanctions, which has not been withdrawn, requests the
immediate production of discovery responses, an award of attorneys fees
and costs incurred in connection with the motion, a finding of civil
contempt with daily fines pending compliance by GNA and the dismissal of
GNA’s counterclaims should GNA fail to produce its discovery responses.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure authorizes the
filing of a motion to compel discovery responses.
37(a)(3)(B).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

A court must ordinarily award the movant’s reasonable

expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in connection with the
filing of the motion if the motion to compel is granted “or if the
disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed
. . . .”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). A court has wide discretion in

determining an appropriate sanction under Rule 37.

National Hockey

League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976); Regional Refuse
Systems v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F. 2d 150, 154 (6th Cir. 1988).
It is unclear, on the present record, whether GNA has made its
discovery responses.

At a minimum, it is apparent that GNA did not do

so until after the Renewed Motion for Sanctions was filed.

Under these

circumstances, the Renewed Motion for Sanctions is meritorious. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
The Renewed Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 45, is therefore GRANTED.
It is ORDERED that, if GNA has not already done so, GNA must respond to

3

plaintiffs’ discovery requests within twenty-four (24) hours.

Its

failure to do so will result in the dismissal of its counterclaims.
Moreover,

plaintiffs

are

AWARDED

their

expenses,

including

attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the grant of the Renewed
Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiffs shall promptly submit to counsel for
defendant

GNA

an

itemized

statement

of

their

expenses,

including

attorney’s fees, incurred by them in connection with the filing and grant
of their motion.

If any party wishes a hearing on the amount of the

award, that party shall promptly file a written request for a hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
March 7, 2012

4