Pietrangelo v. Refresh Club, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 18-cv-1943-DLF-ZMF
• Parties: JAMES E. PIETRANGELO, II, Plaintiff, v. REFRESH CLUB, INC. (d/b/a THE WING), et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

JAMES E. PIETRANGELO, II, Plaintiff, v. REFRESH CLUB, INC. (d/b/a THE WING), et al., Defendants.

No. 18-cv-1943-DLF-ZMF

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 13, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ZIA M FARUQUI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff James E. Pietrangelo, II's Motion for Sanctions, see Pl.'s Mot. for Sanctions (“Pl.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 101; Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion for Sanctions see Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. for Sanctions (“Pl.'s Suppl. Mot.”), ECF No. 115; Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Motion for Sanctions see Pl.'s 2d Suppl. Mot. for Sanctions (“Pl.'s 2d Suppl. Mot.”), ECF No. 118; and Plaintiff's Third Supplemental Motion for Sanctions, see Pl.'s 3d Suppl. Mot. for Sanctions (“Pl.'s 3d Suppl. Mot.”), ECF No. 120, all of which the Court will DENY in an accompanying order.

I. BACKGROUND ^[1]

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff moved for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 37(b)(2) and 37(e). See Pl.'s Mot. On August 10, 2022, Defendants filed their opposition. See Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Sanctions (“Defs.' Opp'n”), ECF No. 107.

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed his reply. See Pl.'s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Sanctions (“Pl.'s Reply”), ECF No. 108.

On October 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplemental motion for sanctions, which centered on Interrogatory No. 23. See Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. On October 31, 2022, Defendants filed their opposition, asking for additional time to provide a second supplemental answer. See Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. for Sanctions 2, ECF No. 116. On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed his reply. See Reply to Defs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Suppl. Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 117. On November 16, 2022, Defendants produced their second supplemental answer. See Pl.'s 2d Suppl. Mot., Ex. 1, Defs.' Objections and 2d Suppl. Answers to Pl.'s 4th Set of Interrogs. (“Defs.' 2d Suppl. Answers”), ECF No. 118-1. On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second supplemental motion for sanctions, arguing that Defendants' second supplemental answer was inadequate because it was unverified. See Pl.'s 2d Suppl. Mot. at 6. On November 22, 2022, Defendants produced a verification statement to Plaintiff. See Pl.'s 3d Suppl. Mot., Ex. 2, Verification of Defs.' 2d Suppl. Answers to Pl.'s 4th Set of Interrogs. (“Verification”), ECF No. 120-2. On November 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third supplemental motion for sanctions, arguing that Defendants committed perjury in their second supplemental response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory 23. See Pl.'s 3d Suppl. Mot. at 1. On December 6, 2022, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff's second and third supplemental motions for sanctions. See Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n to Pl.'s 2d & 3d Suppl. Mots. for Sanctions, ECF No. 121. On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed his reply. See Pl.'s Reply to Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n to Pl.'s 2d & 3d Mots. for Sanctions, ECF No. 122.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[J]udges enjoy wide discretion in managing the discovery process.” 3E Mobile, LLC v. Global Cellular, Inc., 222 F.Supp.3d 50, 53 (D.D.C. 2016) (cleaned up). “When this discovery process is abused, courts are permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to award sanctions.” Smith v. Ergo Sols., LLC, No. 14-cv-382, 2018 WL 5810836, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2018). “[T]he central requirement of a Rule 37 sanction is that it be just.” Arias v. Dyncorp Aero. Operations, LLC, 677 F.Supp.2d 330, 332 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Bonds v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801, 808 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).

Rule 37(b)(2) empowers courts to sanction a party that “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A). Courts may consider “a wide array of sanctions, including staying the proceedings pending compliance with a court order, taking certain facts as established, prohibiting a party from introducing certain matters into evidence, finding a party in contempt of court, and dismissing the action or any part thereof.” Peterson v. Hantman, 227 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D.D.C. 2005). “‘District courts enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whether and how to impose sanctions under Rule 37.'” Gluck v. Ansett Australia Ltd., 204 F.R.D. 217, 220-21 (D.D.C. 2001) (quoting Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 78, 88 (D.D.C. 1998)) (emphasis omitted). “However, the court's discretion is not without limits . . . [as] any sanctions awarded must be proportional to the underlying offense.” Caldwell v. Ctr. for Corr. Health & Pol'y Stud., Inc., 228 F.R.D. 40, 42 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Bonds, 93 F.3d at 808).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Alleged Violations of this Court's Discovery Order

Parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Requests for production (“RFPs”) may seek any material discoverable under Rule 26(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). “Responses to [RFPs] must be complete, explicit[,] and responsive.” Nasreen v. Capitol Petroleum Grp, LLC, 340 F.R.D. 489, 493 (D.D.C. 2022) (cleaned up).

Plaintiff's RFPs sought “a plethora of information about The Wing.” Pietrangelo v. Refresh Club, Inc., No. 18-cv-1943, 2021 WL 1209300, at *2 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2021). Plaintiff's requests sought “to prove that [the Wing was] a place of public accommodation and had discriminatory policies.” Id.; see Pl.'s Mot. to Compel 54-75, ECF No 28. This Court reduced the timeframe of Plaintiff's discovery by almost half, limiting Plaintiff's requests to June 4, 2017 through June 4, 2019. See Pietrangelo, 2021 WL 1209300, at *5. Defendants have produced over 18,000 pages in response to Plaintiff's requests. See Defs.' Opp'n. at 4. Nonetheless, Plaintiff moves for sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2), alleging that Defendants violated this Court's discovery order. See Pl.'s Mot. at 18-19.

1. Plaintiff's RFPs 1-5 (Financial Records)

RFPs 1-4 asked Defendants to produce all receipts and invoices for cafe, retail, service, and membership fees. See Defs.' Opp'n, Ex. B., Defs.' Suppl. Resps. and Objs. to Pl.'s Reqs. for Produc. of Docs. (“Defs.' RFP Resps.”) 6-9, ECF No. 107-2. RFP 5 asked Defendant to produce all documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”) reflecting revenue or income. See Id. at 10. This Court previously limited the scope of RFPs 1-5 to “high-level statements of gross revenue or sales,” including “what percentage of sales were made to members vs. non-members, total customers and purchases, categories of sales and services, and the sex or gender identity of any customers if known.” Pietrangelo, 2021 WL 1209300, at *6.

Defendants “twice produce[d] to Plaintiff high-level statements of gross revenue.” Pl.'s Mot. at 20. Defendants' attorneys have stated that Defendants have produced “the information in [their] possession.” Defs.' Opp'n at 5. The Court relies on such statements given that attorneys “are officers of the court who cannot lie to the Court as part of their duty of candor.” Menashe v. Covington & Burling LLP, 552 F.Supp.3d 35, 44 n.4 (D.D.C. 2021). Conversely, Plaintiff lacks any factual support for his theory that these productions were insufficient. See Pl.'s Mot. at 20. Because Defendants' “productions accurately represent the universe of [requested] documents . . . no further supplementation is necessary.” Garner v. Amazon, Inc., No. C21-0750, 2022 WL 16744319, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2022).

Moreover, the information Plaintiff still requests-about certain categories of sales and services, and the sex/gender identity of the purchasers-is not proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). This Court previously determined that these materials were relevant to The Wing's “status as a place of public accommodation under the [D.C. Human Rights Act (‘DCHRA')]” at the time of Plaintiff's application. Pietrangelo, 2021 WL 1209300, at *6. But Defendants rendered that issue moot via stipulation. See Defs.' Opp'n, Ex. A., Stipulations of Fact “Stipulations” 2, ECF No. 107-1. Thus, Plaintiff has failed “to justify why the substantial time and expense required to adequately respond to [this] RFP [would be] worth it[.]” Wall v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 341 F.R.D. 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2022).

2. Plaintiff's RFP No. 14 (Application Information)

RFP 14 sought all applications for membership to The Wing. See Defs.' RFP Resps. at 1415. On June 15, 2021, Defendants produced spreadsheets summarizing applicants' information from June 4, 2017 to June 4, 2019. See Defs.' RFP Resps. at 16; Pl.'s Mot. at 21. Plaintiff argues that the “Excel spread-sheets [containing the information are] insufficient” due in part to “imperfect or irregular” line formatting. Pl.'s Mot. at 21. However, Rule 34 “does not require a party to produce [ESI] in the form it [sic] which it is ordinarily maintained, [so] long as it is produced in a reasonably usable form.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b) advisory committee's notes to 2006 amendment. Again, Defendants have represented that they made a fulsome disclosure to Plaintiff. See Defs.' Opp'n at 6; Defs.' RFP Resps. at 16. Thus, Defendants have sufficiently responded to RFP 14. See Porter v. Gore, No. 18-cv-1221, 2020 WL 1493615, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (agreeing with a defendant that it has sufficiently responded to an RFP where the documents identified and produced [were] straightforward and sufficiently specific”).

Additionally, given that Plaintiff did not append Defendants' response to RFP 14 as an exhibit and did not cite any supporting legal authority, the Court cannot readily assess the validity of Plaintiff's assertions. See Pl.'s Mot. at 21. As such, “the imposition of . . . sanctions is not warranted[.]” Hedgeye Risk Mgmt., LLC v. Heldman, 412 F.Supp.3d 15, 35 (D.D.C. 2019).

3. ...