In Nelson v. Curtiss Wright Electro Mechanical Corp., the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina addressed significant Rule 37 sanctions arising from a pro se employment discrimination and retaliation action. The court imposed significant sanctions after finding that the plaintiff willfully refused to produce discovery related to damages, emotional distress claims, social media activity, communications with third parties and government agencies, and medical and psychotherapy records. The plaintiff had asserted fourteen causes of action against her former employer, including Title VII discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower claims, invasion of privacy, illegal interception of communications, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reaffirmed that a party who places emotional injuries at issue waives privilege protections associated with related treatment records.
The court previously compelled production, finding the requested information relevant and concluding that the plaintiff waived privilege protections by placing her emotional condition at issue. The magistrate judge had provided the plaintiff with the option to either abandon those claims or produce the requested records, but the plaintiff refused to comply while continuing to pursue emotional damages. After the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s orders, defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 37. The magistrate judge found that the plaintiff acted in bad faith by repeatedly refusing to produce ordered materials and expressly stating she would comply only “to the extent she saw fit.”
Although the court determined dismissal of the entire action would have been justified, it ultimately imposed targeted evidentiary and claim-preclusion sanctions instead. The sanctions included dismissal of multiple claims with prejudice, striking requests for emotional distress and economic damages, and prohibiting the plaintiff from using withheld evidence in support of remaining claims. The court further stressed that pro se status does not excuse compliance with discovery obligations or court orders.
This decision highlights an important takeaway for eDiscovery and litigation teams: courts expect parties to comply fully with discovery orders once disputes have been adjudicated, and continued resistance may result in severe evidentiary and claim-preclusion sanctions. The ruling also reinforces that parties asserting emotional distress claims must be prepared to produce relevant medical and mental health records where those issues are placed directly at issue.
Reach out to Caitlin Oyler, Counsel at CODISCOVR. Caitlin has over a decade of experience providing high-level advice to clients regarding all phases of the eDiscovery life cycle and managing high-profile document collections, reviews, and productions.
