Court Sanctions EEOC for Obstructionist Delays in Discovery Process

The discovery rules are no joke. The courts expect the parties to work together to comply with their obligations under the various rules and laws, and to avoid causing needless expenses and delay — for both the opposing party and the court. This case demonstrates a court's effort to put such behavior in check.

In this case, thirteen employees claimed that a manager sexually harassed female employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit on their behalf. During the discovery phase, it was revealed that certain claimants had been expressing their views about their employer via social media, texts, emails, and blogging. The employer accordingly sought to obtain discovery relating to social media, emails, texts, and blogging from all of the claimants. The employer, however, claimed that the EEOC would not provide such information, and in fact, obfuscated its attempt to obtain discovery to which it was rightfully entitled. 

The employer, therefore, filed a motion for sanctions against the EEOC, charging that the EEOC caused unnecessary expense and delay in the case by refusing  and failing to provide the discovery. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado agreed. The Court held that the EEOC was negligent in its discovery obligations; made promises about discovery methodology and procedure where they had no authority to do so and exhibited a cavalier attitude regarding its responsibility to the court. The Court further noted that the EEOC repeatedly changed its position concerning the methods by which the discovery would be undertaken such that Court and counsel for the employer were forced to expend more resources on things that had already been agreed upon, and that this entire endeavor caused unnecessary delay. 

In terms of sanctions, the Court did note, however, that it did not find the EEOC’s conduct to “sink” to the level of “bad faith,” as is required for an award for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11. The Court ultimately relied upon Rule 16(f) as a basis for sanctions, finding that the EEOC’s actions negatively affected the Court’s management of the docket and placed unnecessary burdens and delays upon the opposing side. As a result of this finding, the Court ordered the EEOC to pay the employer’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended in bringing the Motion in the first place.    

Electronic discovery can prove to be quite contentious. This case demonstrates the importance of timely complying with discovery obligations and shows that the limits of the court’s patience should not be tested. For more information read Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Original Honeybaked Ham Company of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH (Dist. Colo., Feb. 27, 2013).