Mandy Nielsen v. Seven Seventeen Credit Union, Inc., et al.

Summary

This document is an order by a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio resolving defendants’ joint motion for sanctions in an employment-discrimination action. The court addresses the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with discovery orders, including failures involving job-search records, social-media communications, text messages, and photographs, as well as alleged spoliation of electronically stored information. The order applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(e) and considers sanctions including evidentiary restrictions and attorney fees.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with orders requiring production of job-search documentation warranted sanctions, but dismissal of the lost-wage claim was more drastic than necessary. The Court prohibited Plaintiff from introducing evidence, including testimony, about job searches in support of lost-wage damages unless the searches were substantiated by documentary evidence.
2. Plaintiff's failure to produce complete and verifiable social-media communications in compliance with the Court's orders warranted prohibiting the introduction of evidence, including screenshots and testimony, concerning her social-media posts or communications with or about LoCastro, except for materials produced in native format.
3. Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order to produce specified photographs in native format or establish that the produced formats were the only originals in her possession warranted exclusion of those photographs, except for photographs produced in native format containing metadata.
4. Plaintiff's failure to produce complete text-message exchanges concerning LoCastro warranted prohibiting the introduction of evidence, including testimony, concerning her text communications with others about LoCastro's actions, except for communications produced in their entirety.
5. Plaintiff violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1) by deleting relevant explicit photographs after litigation began while under a duty to preserve them. The appropriate sanction was to permit Defendants to present evidence about the deletion and to allow a permissive adverse-inference jury instruction, rather than impose the broader exclusion requested by Defendants.
6. Defendants' request for attorney fees was denied without prejudice because the request was underdeveloped and lacked supporting documentation necessary for the Court to determine the appropriate award.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's repeated violations of discovery orders warranted sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A).
2. Whether Plaintiff should be barred from introducing evidence concerning job searches, social-media communications, photographs, and text communications because of her discovery violations.
3. Whether Plaintiff's deletion of explicit photographs after filing suit constituted spoliation warranting a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e)(1).
4. Whether Defendants were entitled to attorney fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C).

Disposition

other