How To Incur Sanctions: A Primer Courtesy of New York Court

The Cozen O’Connor law firm has weighed in on developments in on the Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York case, specifically the judge’s granting of sanctions over discovery failures. 

Two plaintiffs sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, their former employer, for firing them when they refused to comply with the Fed’s Covid-19 vaccination policy. The suit was heard in District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs argued that their termination violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and Title VII. They said vaccinating was contrary to their religious beliefs.

During discovery, the plaintiffs failed to meet deadlines and delayed producing documents in response to discovery requests. Then they produced voluminous documents more than a month after the deadline. They also filed an expert report relying on responsive documents that had not been produced.

The court granted the Federal Reserve’s motion in part and denied it in part, as the firm explained.

“The [court] granted the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and adverse inferences relating to the plaintiffs’ repeated discovery deficiencies, but denied the request to instruct the jury regarding the particular inferences it should draw from the plaintiffs’ failure to produce certain material,” the firm wrote.

There were other factors supporting sanctions. Plaintiffs repeatedly claimed all responsive documents had been produced without basis. They crafted search terms that weren’t calculated to produce relevant documents, and they inappropriately withheld documents on the basis of bogus privilege claims.

The finding cited repeated discovery failures which constituted intentional bad faith and wasted court time and resources. 

Cozen O’Connor’s Brian Gillam wrote about cybersecurity protection in this article for Today’s General Counsel.