Sparks v. The Columbia City Ballet Company et al

Filing 57

ORDER adopting in part 49 Report and Recommendation, granting in part 23 Motion for Contempt, sanctioning defendant. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 7/21/2016. (cbru, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Barry T. Sparks,
Plaintiff,
vs.

The Columbia City Ballet Company, and
William Starrett,

) Civil Action No.: 3:15-1247-MGL-SVH
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
______________________________
On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff Barry T. Sparks, (“Plaintiff”), brought this discrimination in
employment action pursuant to several federal statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for all
pretrial handling, including review of the instant Motion for Contempt, (ECF No. 23), filed by
Plaintiff on January 13, 2016. Following briefing by the parties and a full evidentiary hearing, the
Magistrate Judge prepared and submitted a thorough Report and Recommendation, (The Report),
(ECF No. 49), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be granted and that Defendants be sanctioned
in the following ways: (1) that the jury be charged that Defendant Starrett testified falsely under oath
as to the material issue of whether Defendants had provided to Plaintiff in discovery all existing
board and committee meeting minutes; (2) that the Court warn Defendants that any similar conduct
will result in entry of judgment for Plaintiff; (3) that the Court order Defendants to supplement
discovery responses to ensure that they are now complete; and (4) that the Court order Defendants

to pay Plaintiff’s fees ($12,420.00) and costs ($606.20) associated with this motion totaling
$13,026.20. On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a short Objection to the Report, (ECF No. 51),
objecting only to the amount of the recommended fee award. On June 27, 2016, Defendants
submitted their Objection, (ECF No. 52), objecting to much of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, and
on July 18, 2016, Plaintiff replied in support of the Magistrate Judge’s findings. (ECF No. 56). The
Court has reviewed all of these submissions, and the matter is now ripe for decision.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of a timely filed Objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the entire record
in this case, including, in particular, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Defendants’ Objection. The
Court has considered each of Defendants’ objections regarding the Report and finds that none of
Defendants’ arguments effectively counter the reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge. The Court, like the Magistrate Judge, is not persuaded that Defendants’ repeated
failures to fully respond to the legitimate discovery requests of Plaintiff and, indeed, to properly
-2-

comply with orders of the Magistrate Judge, including by submitting an affidavit containing false
matter, can be explained away by mere mistake or inadvertence, as opposed to some degree of
“wilfulness, bad faith, or . . . fault” on Defendants’ part. See Wilson v. Volkswagon of America, Inc.,
561 F.2d 494, 503 (4th Cir. 1977) (citing Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212
(1958)). The Court has no trouble concluding that, at very least, Defendants exhibited a conscious
disregard for their discovery responsibilities and for the obvious need to fully comply with orders
of the Court.
In view of the forgoing, the Court concurs in substantial part with the reasoning of the
Magistrate Judge and adopts those significant portions of the Report that are not inconsistent with
this Order and incorporates them herein by reference, (ECF No. 49), overruling Defendants’
objections. (ECF No. 52). The Court departs from the Magistrate Judge’s analysis only in that it
declines to accept that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report which recommends as one of four
sanctions that at any future trial the jury be charged as to Defendants’ misconduct in discovery, as
the Court concludes that this particular proposed sanction is more drastic than necessary to deter
future noncompliance in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt, (ECF No. 23),
is GRANTED, and sanctions Defendants in the following respects: (1) Defendants are hereby
warned that any similar noncompliance will result in entry of judgment for Plaintiff; (2) Defendants
are hereby directed to supplement discovery responses to ensure that they are now complete; and (3)
Defendants are hereby directed to pay Plaintiff’s fees ($12,420.00) and costs ($606.20) associated
with this motion, totaling $13,026.20. Plaintiff’s limited Objection to the Report, (ECF No. 51), in
which Plaintiff urges the Court to calculate the fee figure using a higher hourly rate, is overruled.
-3-

The Court is satisfied, based on the entire record before it, that a $200.00 hourly rate is appropriate,
in particular, given the number of hours expended and the nature of the work performed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
July 21, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

-4-