Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Triple-S Vida, Inc., et al., Defendants Civ. No. 21-1463 (FAB-MDM) United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico Filed August 25, 2023 Counsel Melissa Marie Castillo, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tampa Field Office, Tampa, FL, Adriana G. Rodriguez, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, San Antonio, TX, Beatriz Biscardi-Andre, U.S. EEOC, Miami, FL, Carmen Manrara Cartaya, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff. Alberto J. Farmer-Del Toro, Guzman & Rodriguez-Lopez Law Office, San Juan, PR, Enrique A. Del Cueto-Perez, ECIJA SBGB, San Juan, PR, Jaime Luis Sanabria-Montanez, Sanabria Bauermeister Garcia & Berio LLC, San Juan, PR, for Defendants. Morgan, Marshal D., United States Magistrate Judge REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION *1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) filed an “Urgent Motion for Additional Costs and Sanctions” requesting the imposition of a garden variety of sanctions against the defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 due to their pattern of severe noncompliance with the Court's orders, their continued commission of discovery violations, and their failure to provide outstanding discovery, all of which has significantly affected the EEOC's ability to adequately prosecute its claims. (Docket No. 118) (hereinafter the “Motion for Sanctions”). On their part, the defendants, Triple-S Vida, Inc., (“TSV”) and Triple-S Management Corporation (“TSM) (together the “defendants”), opposed the Motion for Sanctions, arguing that they have either “somewhat” complied with the mandatory discovery, albeit deficiently or incompletely, and that any delay has been due to “technical difficulties, unforeseen complexity, and an onerous review process that is entirely justifiable.” (Docket No. 125). Alternatively, the defendants maintain that they have not yet made the required and past-due production of discovery because the task was “impossible.” Id. The EEOC filed a reply to the defendants’ opposition (the “Reply”) (Docket No. 131) and the defendants filed a sur-reply (the “Sur-reply”) (Docket No. 138). After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, as well as the applicable law, the Court rules as follows. I. Procedural Background and Defendants’ History of Noncompliance The Court summarizes the relevant procedural background because the litigation history is crucial to the analysis that follows. A. The Motion to Dismiss On July 18, 2022, TSM filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”), or in the alternative, a Motion to Strike (hereinafter referred to as the “Motion to Dismiss”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), claiming that TSV and TSM were not joint employers. As a result, TSM argued that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed against it. (Docket No. 44). On February 17, 2023, the undersigned issued a detailed Report and Recommendation denying TSM's Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 79). In so ruling, the Court found that “the [Corporate] Certificates of Existence [submitted in support of defendants’ request for relief] alone, were insufficient to support the dismissal of the claims against TSM” and that the Amended Complaint, on its face, alleged sufficient facts to show that TSM could be found liable as a joint employer. In a nutshell, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss had no basis in law and was procedurally deficient.[1] The Report and Recommendation was adopted in full by the presiding judge on March 13, 2023. (See Docket No. 84). B. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel because of the Failure to Provide Discovery *2 On December 14, 2022, the EEOC filed a Motion to Compel indicating that, by that date, little to no discovery had been produced by the defendants. The discovery to which the plaintiff referred was first propounded back in September 2022, which means that the responses thereto would have become due pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) in or about October 2022.[2] (Docket No. 61). The Court scheduled a discovery hearing to discuss the Motion to Compel. On February 16, 2023, however, the day before the scheduled hearing, the Court vacated the hearing because it determined that the Motion to Compel could have been affected, at least as to TSM, by how the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss in as much as the then-pending ruling could potentially limit the scope of TSM's required discovery or obviate it altogether.[3] (Docket No. 77). The Court therefore rescheduled the discovery hearing for a later date giving the Court time to issue a ruling on TSM's Motion to Dismiss. By March 3, 2023, however, neither of the defendants had yet produced much of the discovery requested by the EEOC back in September 2022. They had, if anything, only made a minimal preliminary production that failed to address or support many of the defenses they were raising in their pleadings. Nevertheless, considering that TSM may have limited its responses because of the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer by March 9, 2023, to resolve in good faith any pending discovery disputes without intervention from the Court. (See Docket No. 82). The Court also ordered the parties to inform it by no later than March 14, 2023, of the outcome of their meet and confer session, in particular whether any agreements had been reached with respect to the pending discovery disputes. The defendants were also ordered to submit a proposed schedule for the production of all pending discovery. Id. The Court then warned the parties that “if the Court discovers that a party is being unreasonably intransigent with respect to discovery, the Court does not discard the possibility of imposing sanctions, where appropriate.” Id. So, as far back as March 3, 2023, the Court issued a clear warning to both parties that they should conduct discovery in good faith and comply with their discovery obligations or face sanctions for noncompliance. 1. The Meet and Confer Session. As a result of the Court's order, the parties conducted two telephonic meet and confer sessions, one on Thursday, March 9, 2023, and the other on Saturday, March 11, 2023. During the meet and confer sessions, certain discovery agreements were reached between the parties. The specifics of those agreements were memorialized in the parties’ “Conferral Report on [the] EEOC's Pending Motion to Compel Defendants’ Discovery” and included, among other things, an extension of time until April 7, 2023, for the defendants to comply with their discovery obligations. (Docket No. 85). Regrettably, however, the defendants failed to abide by the agreements reached with the EEOC at their meet and confer session and did not provide an adequate and complete exchange of discovery as promised. Consequently, on April 13, 2023, the EEOC notified the Court that defendants had failed to produce any documents or information by April 7, 2023, a deadline which the defendants themselves had proposed during the parties’ meet and confer session. (See Docket No. 87, at 1-2). Because of the defendants’ failure to comply with their own deadline, and in the hope of avoiding further non-compliance, the EEOC requested that the Court impose a date certain for the defendants to produce the pending discovery and to impose sanctions if defendants failed to comply. Id. 2. Extensions of time for defendants to comply with discovery obligations. *3 In response, the Court granted in part and denied in part the EEOC's “Motion Requesting Court Ordered Deadline for Defendants to Produce Agreed Upon Discovery and Attorney's Fees and Costs” (Docket 87) and granted the defendants a second extension of time until April 20, 2023, to produce the pending discovery. (Docket No. 89). In so doing, the Court granted the defendants more time than that which was originally agreed to by the parties. The Court held off on imposing any sanctions against the defendants at that time and chose instead to hold a hearing to discuss defendants’ failure to comply with the agreed upon deadlines and the remaining discovery disputes raised in the Motion to Compel. Id. Originally, the motion hearing was scheduled for April 27, 2023, but it was later rescheduled for May 5, 2023 (the “May 5 Hearing”). Because the parties appeared to be making progress in resolving their discovery disputes, and in anticipation of resolving any lingering disputes during the May 5 Hearing, the Court deemed the EEOC's Motion to Compel moot. (Docket No. 93). In the days leading up to the May 5 Hearing, the Court learned that the defendants had once again missed the Court-ordered deadline of April 20, 2023, but because they had timely requested an extension, the Court granted them a third extension of time until April 30, 2023, to finally comply with their discovery obligations. (See Docket Nos. 89, 91 & 92). 3. Prejudice to Plaintiff's Ability to Litigate its Case Due to Defendants’ Non-Compliance Given the pending production of discovery, combined with the defendants’ repeated failure to comply with their discovery obligations, on April 24, 2023, the EEOC filed an unopposed motion requesting that the Court extend the overall deadline to conclude discovery in the case by some forty-five (45) days, or until August 11, 2023. (Docket No. 94). The EEOC justified the request by pointing to the multiple delays in the discovery process caused by the defendants and observed that “time has passed and ... Defendants have not produced any electronically stored information, have not responded to agreed-upon interrogatories, and have not produced other key relevant information.” Id. The EEOC thus requested additional time to conduct discovery to make up for defendants’ delays in producing the information that it needed for the taking of depositions. Id. The Court denied the request to extend the date to conclude all discovery stating that: The pretrial and trial dates, which have been set by the presiding judge, Senior Judge Francisco A. Besosa, and which involve his calendar and his availability, will not be disturbed. Because these dates cannot be altered by the undersigned, the requested extensions of time are not feasible and therefore the EEOC's “Unopposed motion for extension of time for discovery and all other remaining deadlines” at Docket No. 94 is DENIED. (Docket No. 95). Accordingly, the original deadline of June 23, 2023, to conclude all discovery remained unchanged. On May 4, 2023, in preparation for the May 5 Hearing, the EEOC filed a Motion Detailing the Outstanding Discovery Issues (“Notice of Pending Discovery”). (Docket No. 99). In its Notice of Pending Discovery, the EEOC renewed its prior request for costs and attorney's fees as a result of the defendants’ lackadaisical approach to discovery which delayed the production of discovery for several months and forced the EEOC to incur in unnecessary expenses like the cancelling of already booked airfare and hotel reservations, the rescheduling of depositions, and the need to file several motions seeking appropriate relief from the Court. Id. In its Notice of Pending Discovery, the EEOC also renewed its request to impose sanctions against the defendants for their repeated discovery violations and for their overall dilatory litigation tactics. Id. Importantly, by May 5, 2023, the defendants had already failed to comply with specific discovery deadlines on at least three separate occasions, including the Court mandated April 30, 2023, deadline. 4. The May 5 Hearing and the Orders Imposing Sanctions and Requiring the Immediate Production of Discovery Materials. *4 On May 5, 2023, the Court convened a discovery hearing via videoconference to address the parties’ arguments with respect to several pending discovery matters. The Court also heard each party's position as to the outstanding issues listed by the EEOC in its Notice of Pending Discovery. (Docket No. 99). The issues raised in the Notice of Pending Discovery had particular urgency given the fact that the overall discovery deadline of June 23, 2023, was fast approaching. As the May 5 Hearing progressed, it became clear to the Court that because of the defendants’ dilatory and obstructionist discovery strategy, the EEOC had been unable to obtain relevant evidence that was crucial to its lawsuit, had been unable to prepare for and take certain depositions, and had been unable to litigate its case effectively. It also became apparent that the defendants willfully failed to comply with the Court's April 30, 2023, deadline, without providing any reasonable justification. During the May 5 Hearing, the Court issued rulings adjudicating the issues raised in the EEOC's original Motion to Compel (Docket No. 61) and those raised in the Notice of Pending Discovery (Docket No. 99). In pertinent part, the Court ordered the defendants to produce all outstanding discovery and to supplement the pending discovery responses consistent with the rulings of the Court by no later than May 12, 2023 (the “May 12, 2023, Deadline”) (Docket No. 117). Also, during the May 5 Hearing, the Court concluded that defendants had engaged in repeated discovery violations. As detailed in the 17-page Minute Order, the record highlighted a myriad of discovery abuses perpetrated by the defendants. (Docket No. 117). Furthermore, the Court found that with the fast-approaching June 23, 2023, deadline to conclude all discovery, the EEOC had already been prejudiced and continued to be prejudiced by the defendants’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations and their continued refusal to provide nonprivileged materials relevant to the outstanding claims and defenses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“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.”). The Court also ruled on the EEOC's renewed request to impose sanctions against the defendants for the multiple discovery violations and the failure to comply with the Court's orders. (Docket No. 99). More precisely, the Court explained as follows in the Minute Order from the May 5 Hearing (Docket No. 117): During the hearing, the Court noted that it had already made a substantial record highlighting the discovery abuses that ha[d] been perpetrated by the defendants. As the Court ... described, the defendants’ conduct here has been severe, repeated, and deliberate, with no legitimate or mitigating explanation for their noncompliance. Defendants’ stonewalling has frustrated, and will continue to frustrate, the EEOC's ability to prosecute this lawsuit and the Court's ability to manage its docket. See AngioDynamics, Inc., 780 F.3d at 435. Here, little if any discovery has been produced by the defendants after eight months. Additionally, defendants willfully ignored and disobeyed the Court's Order to produce the supplemental discovery by April 30, 2023, after having been granted various extensions. In sum, the defendants’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations, their failure to timely make disclosures, and their failure to comply with the Court Order at Docket No. 92, has and will continue to cause irreversible prejudice to the EEOC by effectively preventing it from properly preparing for, and taking, needed depositions in time to comply with the presiding judge's looming discovery deadlines. *5 Based on the foregoing conduct, the Court found that the imposition of additional monetary sanctions against the defendants was warranted for their unjustified dilatory tactics that have been demonstrated throughout this litigation, and for their imprudent discovery strategy and stonewalling. In conclusion, based on the defendants’ discovery-related abuses, deliberate misconduct, and unjustified failure to comply with the Court's lawful Order, combined with their unjustified and willful delay in responding to relevant discovery requests, the Court ORDERS the defendants to pay a monetary sanction to the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $5,000.00. Docket No. 117. (Emphasis added) (the “May 5 Order”). In reaching this conclusion, the Court also weighed the impact of defendant's abuses against the pending deadlines in this case: namely the overall discovery deadline set for June 23, 2023; the Pretrial/Settlement Conference scheduled for October 2, 2023, and the Jury Trial scheduled for October 9, 2023, the latter two of which are scheduled before Senior Judge Francisco A. Besosa. (Docket No. 21). In sum, the Court ordered the defendants to pay a monetary sanction of $5,000 due to their discovery-related abuses, deliberate misconduct, vexatious litigation strategy,[4] and unjustified failure to comply with the Court's lawful orders. The $5,0000 monetary sanction is currently pending review by the presiding judge and has not been paid by the defendants. (Docket No. 112). C. Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Sanctions, presently pending before the Court. Despite the Court's orders, defendants failed to provide the discovery materials by the May 12, 2023, Deadline. Plaintiff, nevertheless, graciously allowed defendants until May 25, 2023, to fully comply with the Court's May 5 Order before notifying of the violation in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute without further intervention by the Court. When May 25, 2023, came and defendants failed, once again, to comply with the May 5 Order, plaintiff was left with no other recourse than to file the instant Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 118) claiming that defendants’ pattern of noncompliance continued to significantly affect its ability to prosecute its claims. *6 Defendants opposed the Motion for Sanctions, arguing that they have partially complied with the mandatory discovery, that their delay in reaching full compliance is justified because of the technical difficulties and unforeseen complexity of the production, and because the task imposed by the Court was impossible. (Docket No. 125). The EEOC filed a Reply (Docket No. 131) and the defendats filed a Sur-reply. (Docket No. 138). D. Defendants’ Unjustified Discovery Violations. In the Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 118), which is currently before the Court for consideration, the plaintiff identifies the following series of discovery violations committed by defendants as to which it is now requesting additional sanctions. 1. Failure to respond to Interrogatory 1-10 regarding information on the transfer of defendants’ employees to its affiliates as reasonable accommodations. In the Motion for Sanctions, the EEOC indicated that TSV did not respond to Interrogatory 1-10 in the supplemental responses by the Court-ordered deadline. The plaintiff explained that the information sought in this interrogatory was information regarding the transfer of defendants’ employees to its affiliates as reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff also explained that after allowing extra days for the defendants to comply, the EEOC conferred with defendants on May 24, 2023, to request a response to Interrogatory 1-10. In response, defendants’ counsel stated that a response to this interrogatory was not provided merely because the client did not provide the information to its attorneys. (Docket No. 118 at n.3.) In their opposition to the Motion for Sanctions, defendants admit that they failed to abide by the Court's order to respond to this interrogatory by the May 12, 2023, Deadline. They claim, however, that the May 12, 2023, Deadline “was unreasonable and virtually impossible” without providing a substantive reason for the impossibility. 2. Failure to produce documents pertaining to decision makers. During the May 5 Hearing, the Court found the EEOC's requests for production of documents Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77 regarding decision makers to be relevant, not overly broad, not unduly burdensome, and the type of documentation routinely requested and exchanged in discrimination cases. (Docket No. 117). The Court thus ordered defendants to produce the documentation requested pertaining to those decision makers without further delay. Id. To date, however, the defendants have still not produced this information in discovery. In its Motion for Sanctions, the EEOC indicated that TSV did not amend its responses to, nor did it produce any decision-maker documents responsive to the requests for production of documents nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 77 by the Court imposed deadline. The EEOC further argued that TSV had not produced documents, including job descriptions pertaining to key decision makers and the relevant personnel files for Mayra Santiago, Kayra Davila Torres, Robert Benitez Ruiz, Boanerges Rosario, Vivianette Cordero Cabrera, and Ilia Rodríguez. In a good-faith effort to resolve this discovery dispute, the EEOC conferred with defendants’ counsel on May 24, 2023, who indicated that they were still working on the production. In their opposition to the Motion for Sanctions, filed on June 2, 2023, the defendants did not challenge the fact that they failed to comply with the Court's order to produce the relevant documents pertaining to decision-makers by May 12, 2023. (Docket No. 125). They alleged, however, that the “Court cannot lose sight that these discovery issues are numerous and require attention and time” and claimed that their production of pending discovery was imminent. Id. Therefore, they requested until June 9, 2023, to comply with the Court's May 5 Order as to the decision maker documents. Id. *7 Despite requesting this additional extension of time, defendants also failed to fulfill their discovery obligations by that self-granted extension of time. They instead argued in their Sur-reply, filed on July 11, 2023, that they had been supplementing their discovery responses to these requests “during the last couple of weeks,” but were unable to timely comply “due to technical difficulties, unforeseen complexity, and an onerous review process which is completely justifiable, considering the impermissibly overbroad nature of the document and information request issued” by the EEOC. (Docket No. 113). (Emphasis added). The Sur-reply was filed after the deadline of June 23, 2023, to conclude all discovery had elapsed. 3. Defendant's Late Production of ESI and ESI Metadata. At the May 5 Hearing, the Court ordered the defendants to produce forthwith the relevant and responsive ESI and ESI metadata, which defendants had agreed to produce prior to the May 5 Hearing. In the event that some ESI metadata responsive to the EEOC's discovery request did not exist, the Court ordered the defendants to certify that for the record. Now, in the Motion for Sanctions, the EEOC claims that with respect to the responsive ESI and ESI metadata, defendants failed to produce any ESI by May 12, 2023, in clear contravention with the Court's Order. According to the EEOC, it was not until May 17, 2023, that defendants made a “wholly irrelevant,” “unresponsive,” “improper,” and incomplete ESI production” “without having undertaken the proper ESI protocols that would have yielded relevant results.” The EEOC's review of the ESI production yielded zero results for emails referencing various key witnesses and search terms including, but not limited to: the charging party Ivelisse González Rosa; custodians Kayra Dávila Torres, Vivianette Cordero; and the term “acomodo” (the Spanish word for “accommodation”). The EEOC also searched for specific email communications previously produced during the EEOC's investigation and determined that such documents were not included in the materials even though a proper ESI search and collection would have yielded those e-mails as “hit” results. For example, the EEOC searched for the term “discrimination” and located only one document (which is not relevant to the instant case) despite the existence of emails from the EEOC forwarding the charge of discrimination to Ilia Rodríguez, who was one of the custodians’ communications that defendants claimed to have searched. As a result of the deficient ESI production, the EEOC conferred with defendants on May 18, 2023, in the hope of resolving this matter without further intervention from the Court. According to the EEOC, most of the ESI production was still pending well past the Court ordered deadline. In response to the Motion for Sanctions, the defendants first claim that the pending ESI production “required time, effort, manpower, and funds to complete.” They further contend that contrary to what the EEOC is arguing, counsel for the defendants have supervised and overseen the collection of ESI at all times, but when the production was completed, it turned out to be deficient, as designated by the EEOC. Upon realizing the ESI production blunder, the defendants and their counsel contend that they “once again began the process and hired an additional IT[5] Firm to conduct the searches and process them through a costly and sophisticated software called OneDiscovery.” The defendants further argue that “[e]ver since the EEOC's claim of deficiency, [they] mobilized both IT companies and were able to process the ESI into the aforementioned software. To the defendants’ dismay, however, the results of these searches amounted to hundreds of thousands of “hits” and “the review of these extremely numerous results is what has delayed ESI production.” That said, the defendants claimed that by June 4, 2023, they would have produced “results of the ESI related to the individuals who are the subject of next week's depositions.” Notwithstanding such averment, the defendants requested in their Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions until June 9, 2023, to comply with the production of the remaining ESI, along with its metadata. *8 In reply to these arguments, the EEOC specified that defendants ultimately made “their first responsive, yet incomplete, ESI production on June 5, 2023[,] which encompassed three custodians — Ninette Ballestero, Robert Benitez Ruiz, and Arturo Carrion—all of whom were noticed to be deposed only days later on June 7, 2023, June 8, 2023, and June 9, 2023, respectively.” As stated by the EEOC, defendants made a “second ESI production on June 10, 2023, which encompassed custodians: Vivianette Cordero, Boanerges Rosario, Kayra Dávila Torres, Mayra Santiago, Ilia Rodríguez, and Robert Benitez.” The EEOC maintains that the timing of this ESI production was prejudicial as plaintiff was unable to ask, for example, Mr. Benitez about various pieces of ESI that were received days after his deposition was taken. The EEOC further argues that it was prejudiced because it had taken Ms. Vivianette Cordero's deposition back on May 19, 2023, three weeks before any documents were produced from her account. Ultimately, the EEOC indicated that the defendants completed their ESI production on June 14, 2023—over one month past the Court-ordered deadline. 4. Information that is relevant to the issue of joint employer and integrated enterprise theories of liability. In the Amended Complaint, the EEOC has argued that TSV and TSM operate as an “integrated enterprise” or as “joint employers.” Defendants denied that assertion and claimed that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed against TSM in its entirety because it has “nothing to do with the case.” (Docket No. 44). That Motion to Dismiss has been denied by the Court. (Docket No. 79 and 84). Though TSM has relied on its defense that it is not a joint employer, they have nonetheless continuously objected to producing any documents responsive to the EEOC's discovery requests on the question of joint employer liability. As a result of defendants’ reiterated objections to producing this evidence, the EEOC requested the Court's assistance. During the May 5 Hearing, the Court heard from the defendants on this matter and found that they had failed to offer a valid reason for their refusal to produce this relevant information. The Court opined that defendants cannot advance the defense of not being joint employers on one hand, and on the other hand, refuse to produce information and documents that have a direct bearing on that factual and legal question. As such, the Court ordered the defendants to produce the information and documents requested by the EEOC by May 12, 2023, because those materials are relevant to the issue of joint employer and integrated enterprise liability, a crucial issue in this litigation. Defendants did not comply. By May 25, 2023, the defendants had not yet produced the past-due documents pertaining to the EEOC's specific discovery requests relevant to the issue of joint employer and/or integrated theories of liability. In response to the request for sanctions, defendants did not dispute that they failed to comply with the Court's Order. Instead, their justification for their failure to comply was that they contested the relevance of a claim of joint employer liability against TSM and that the dispute regarding the relevancy of that legal issue remained in effect at the time of the May 5 Hearing. They claimed, therefore, that they only became obligated to produce discovery regarding this legal issue at the May 5 Hearing. They claim further that the May 12, 2023, Deadline to comply with this discovery “was unreasonable and virtually impossible” and that the Court “condemned defendants to further sanctions for inevitable incompliance with an impossible task.” The May 5 Order, however, required that defendants produce within seven days relevant materials that had been requested more than eight months before and which had become indisputably within the scope of this discovery in this case[6] as of March 13, 2023, when Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss seeking to exclude TSM from the case under the theory that it is not a joint employer was denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). *9 Defendants further alleged that they were not trying to “stonewall” this production and that disclosing such discovery was imminent, that they just needed until June 9, 2023, to comply. (Docket No. 125). Defendants, however, flouted their own June 9, 2023, deadline and did not produce any documents relevant to the issue of joint employer or joint enterprise until August 3, 2023—well past the Court-ordered May 12, 2023, deadline, and more than one (1) month past the overall discovery deadline of June 23, 2023. In so doing, they also provided incomplete and evasive discovery. (See Docket No. 152). They produced a single, heavily-redacted services agreement and ignored most of the EEOC's discovery requests pertaining to this issue. 5. Supplemental responses to address TSV's prior deficient interrogatory responses. At the May 5 Hearing, the Court discussed the parties’ discovery disputes with respect to the EEOC's Interrogatory Nos. 1-2, 1-3, and 1-9 addressed to TSV and Interrogatories implicating affiliates addressed to TSM, which requested information pertaining to the nine (9) positions for which the claimant had allegedly applied. After hearing from the parties, the Court found that the EEOC's discovery requests did not go beyond what is relevant to the EEOC's claims and to the defenses raised by the defendants. The Court also reiterated its prior ruling that defendants cannot selectively produce information regarding their affiliates when it suits their case but zealously refuse to provide the same type of information when they deem it prejudicial to their case. Defendants’ continued refusal to produce relevant, non-privileged discovery was found to be unjustified and contrary to the nature of good faith discovery. The Court therefore ordered the defendants to respond to these supplemental interrogatories, including answering questions related to TSV and TSM's affiliates to the extent that they could plausibly answer them, that they had knowledge of such information, and that such information was within their purview and control. The Court also made pellucid that the defendants were being ordered to produce relevant information over which the Court found them to be in possession, custody, and control and ordered the defendants to answer these discovery requests not on behalf of non-parties, but rather, on their own behalf. Defendants were ordered to produce this discovery by May 12, 2023. Defendants failed to comply with that deadline and failed to provide a valid justification for their non-compliance. To the contrary, in the Sur-reply filed on July 11, 2023, defendants acknowledged that the responses have been available and prepared for production but not disclosed in a timely manner. Defendants also admitted that they did not adequately supplement the TSV and TSM interrogatories by May 12, 2023, despite the fact that as discovered during the June 20, 2023, deposition of defendant's corporate representative, the pertinent information had been readily accessible to them from a single, centralized repository on the “Cornerstone Application Portal” that has been within the defendants’ custody and control throughout the litigation. (See Docket No. 125). Defendants also acknowledged that the information was readily available for production and that by July 11, 2023, they had drafted and prepared a “Fourth Supplemental Response for Production of Documents” as to both defendants and a “Third Supplemental Response and Objections for TSV.” They averred that they “[h]ad the intention to produce to [p]laintiff's representatives all of these documents within the [subsequent] forty-eight (48) hours, after which [they] will notify this Honorable Court as to its compliance.” Id. *10 Once again, defendants failed to comply with the Court's orders, casually flouted the discovery deadline of June 23, 2023, and did not even comply with their (belated) and unilaterally granted extension of time. Defendants offered no valid justification nor reasonable excuse for their constant non-compliance. 6. Responses to the EEOC's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production to TSM The EEOC argued in its Motion for Sanctions that TSM has yet to produce complete and adequate responses to its First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents. The EEOC maintains that TSM has supported its refusal to answer these discovery requests by arguing that “[w]hile TSM is aware that information regarding third-party entities that are not a party to this lawsuit was ordered to be produced by the Magistrate Judge in this case, TSM maintains its objection.” As the EEOC correctly points out, TSM has chosen to openly disregard the Court's order regarding the production of materials deemed relevant to the proceedings. In response, the defendants do not hide the fact that they are flouting the Court's order willingly and without just cause. They merely argue that the issue of “answering for separate entities not a party to this lawsuit is a legitimate concern that justifies” their continued objections. They don't, however, articulate any basis for relief that would release them from the obligation to produce relevant material in discovery as imposed by the Rules and the Court's orders. Having now listed the particular areas of discovery for which the plaintiff is seeking additional sanctions, the Court moves on to discussing whether the failure to produce discovery as to any of those six items, and more significantly, the defendants’ unjustified failure to comply with the Court's orders requiring such production, warrants the imposition of sanctions, and, if so, what sanctions are warranted? II. The Court's Authority to Sanction Parties for Discovery Violations District courts have considerable autonomy in managing discovery proceedings. This authority extends both to setting disclosure deadlines and meting out sanctions when parties fail to honor such deadlines. See Genereux v. Raytheon Co., 754 F.3d 51, 59 (1st Cir. 2014); see also González-Rivera v. Centro Médico Del Turabo, Inc., 931 F.3d 23, 27 (1st Cir. 2019). Under Rule 37, the district court maintains a variety of tools at its disposal to sanction a party who violates discovery orders and has wide discretion in choosing what sanctions are appropriate for discovery violations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Santiago–Díaz, 456 F.3d at 275. See also Samaan v. St. Joseph Hosp., 670 F.3d 21, 36–37 (1st Cir. 2012). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) equips courts with a ‘veritable arsenal of sanctions’ for noncompliance with court directives.” Hawke Capital Partners, L.P. v. Aeromed Services Corp., 300 F.R.D. 52, 55 (D.P.R. 2014) (quoting Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages Assocs., 478 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 1985)). More specifically, Rule 37(b), provides in pertinent part as follows: (b) Failure to Comply With a Court Order * * * (2) Sanctions Sought in the District Where the Action Is Pending. (A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders. They may include the following: *11 (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). (Emphasis added). Rule 37(c), meanwhile, provides in pertinent part as follows: (c) Failure to Disclose, to Supplement an Earlier Response, or to Admit. (1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement. If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard: (A) may order payment of the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure; (B) may inform the jury of the party's failure; and (C) may impose other appropriate sanctions, including any of the orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)—(vi). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). (Emphasis added). Relevant to the facts of this case, Rule 37 identifies a party's failure to obey the court's discovery orders, and its failure to disclose or supplement a discovery response, as discovery violations that commonly warrant sanctions such as the striking of pleadings and the taking of facts as true. Skytec, Inc. v. Logistic Sys., Inc., Civil No. 15-2104-BJM, at *2-3 (D.P.R. Sep. 12, 2018). Indeed, in the case of more serious violations, the district court can even go as far as dismissing actions, when the violator is a plaintiff, or entering judgment by default, when the violator is a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). In sum, Rule 37 sets forth a clear path to be followed when a litigant is not cooperating in the discovery process. R.W. Int'l Corp. v. Welch Foods, Inc., 937 F.2d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 1991). District courts may impose such sanctions with an eye towards penalizing the particular noncompliance and deterring others from engaging in the same tactics. AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG, 780 F.3d 429, 435 (1st Cir. 2015); Companion Health Servs., Inc. v. Kurtz, 675 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976) (per curiam)). The choice of sanction lies in the purview of the district court and appellate review for abuse of discretion is highly deferential. AngioDynamics, Inc., supra. “[T]his standard of review is not appellant-friendly—and a disgruntled litigant bears a heavy burden in attempting to show that an abuse occurred.” Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 2002). Such abuse is found only “when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and no improper factors are assessed, but the court makes a serious mistake in weighing them.” Indep. Oil & Chem. Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927, 929 (1st Cir. 1988). Thus, “[t]he question on appeal is not whether [the appellate court], as an original matter, would have utilized the same sanction, whether some harsher sanction might have been warranted, or whether some less painful sanction might have sufficed; rather, the question is whether the district court, in choosing the particular sanction misused its discretionary powers.” Thibeault v. Square D Co., 960 F.2d 239, 243 (1st Cir. 1992); González-Rivera, 931 F.3d at 27. III. Legal Analysis Regarding the Applicability of Sanctions in this Case *12 “District [and magistrate] judges live in the trenches, where discovery battles are repeatedly fought.” Thibeault, 960 F.2d at 244 (quoting Fashion House, Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 892 F.2d 1076, 1082 (1st Cir. 1989)). Indeed, in this case, the Court has expended an inordinate amount of time in just a few months managing the parties’ discovery disputes. Both parties have suffered the consequences of the defendant's failure to faithfully abide by its obligation to participate in good faith throughout the discovery process. On one hand, the EEOC has been significantly limited and continues to be limited in its ability to properly conduct discovery and litigate this case. On the other hand, defendants have also suffered the consequences of their own actions because the Court has already imposed sanctions against them for their repeated and unjustified discovery violations and for their failure to comply with the Court's orders. Nevertheless, despite the fact that in this case the Court has actively intervened in and used several of the tools at its disposal to procure adherence to good faith litigation practices, the defendants’ failure to comport themselves in compliance with their discovery obligations continues unabated. As explained above, the defendants’ failure to comply with its discovery obligations and failure to obey the Court's orders runs the gamut from apparent negligence to outright defiance of the Court's orders. A. Factors that Warrant the Imposition of Sanctions for Discovery Violations The First Circuit has enumerated a set of non-exhaustive factors to be weighed in determining whether the twin goals, punishment, and deterrence, justify a particular sanction in a specific factual context of discovery violations. Vallejo v. Santini–Padilla, 607 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2010). See also Angiodynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG, 991 F. Supp. 2d 283, 290 (D. Mass. 2014), aff'd, 780 F.3d 429 (1st Cir. 2015). Specifically, courts are called upon to take into account “the severity of the discovery violations, the legitimacy of the party's excuse for failing to comply, repetition of the violations, deliberateness of the misconduct, mitigating excuses, prejudice to the other party and to the operations of the court, and the adequacy of lesser sanctions. AngioDynamics, Inc., supra; Vallejo v. Santini–Padilla, 607 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2010). On the procedural side, the First Circuit considers whether the district court gave the offending party notice of the possibility of sanctions and the opportunity to explain its misconduct and whether the offending party was allowed to argue against the imposition of such a penalty. Id. These factors help distinguish good faith attempts to comply with discovery obligations from deliberate, bad faith refusals to do so. See Benítez–García v. González–Vega, 468 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2006). The factors serve as a guide and need not be applied mechanically. Id. Angiodynamics, Inc, 991 F. Supp. 2d at 290 aff'd, 780 F.3d 429. In cases involving the preclusion of evidence as a sanction, courts are called upon to weigh the “history of the litigation, the proponent's need for the challenged evidence, the justification (if any) for the late disclosure, and the opponent's ability to overcome its adverse effects,” including “[s]urprise and prejudice.” Macaulay v. Anas, 321 F.3d 45, 51 (1st Cir. 2003). Samaan, 670 F.3d at 36–37. The court may also consider “what the late disclosure portends for the court's docket.” Id. To make an adequate assessment of the totality of the circumstances in this tangled litigation and to determine whether sanctions are appropriate, the Court takes a closer look at the pertinent factors. 1. The discovery process in this case and defendants repeated non-compliance. The Court begins with the history of the litigation, and whether the violations have been repeated. As detailed in Section I above, the discovery process in this case has been fractured and incomplete because defendants have repeatedly failed to comply with discovery deadlines and have violated the Court's orders regarding discovery. Moreover, the defendants have failed to comply with the deadlines imposed by the Rules, as well as by their own self-granted extensions of time. In summary, they have failed to comply with discovery deadlines on at least six separate occasions (October 2022, and April 7, April 30, May 12, May 25 and June 9, 2023) and have flouted Court orders on two occasions (April 30 and May 12, 2023). *13 The Court views the first occasion of non-compliance with their discovery violations as the defendants’ failure to provide any substantive response to plaintiff's initial discovery requests that were propounded back in September 2022. Defendant's failure at that point to produce anything in discovery forced the plaintiff to file its first Motion to Compel on December 14, 2022. (Docket 66). The second occasion was after the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer by March 9, 2023, and resolve all discovery disputes in good faith, as required by the Rules. As part of the resulting meetings and communications between counsel at that time, the parties agreed to set a deadline of April 7, 2023, for the defendants to comply with their discovery obligations. April 7, 2023, came and went, however, and defendants failed to comply. The third occasion occurred when on April 13, 2023, in response to a motion by the plaintiff to order the defendants to provide discovery by a date certain (because they had previously flouted the parties’ agreed-upon deadlines) the Court ordered the defendants to provide discovery by April 20, 2023. Importantly, the deadline of April 20, 2023, was more forgiving than the deadline originally recommended by the parties. The defendants, however, sought an extension of time to comply, which the Court granted, thereby extending the April 20, 2023, deadline to April 30, 2023. This Court-ordered April 30, 2023, deadline came and went without compliance from the defendants and without any explanation for violating the Court's order. A few days later, at the May 5 Hearing, the full extent of defendants’ discovery violations became apparent. The record developed at the hearing revealed that defendants’ litigation strategy had consisted of filing frivolous motions and delaying discovery at every turn by refusing to provide relevant materials without substantial and valid justification and by providing evasive or incomplete disclosures, answers, or responses in violation of the Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) provides that any “evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or responsive must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Realizing that defendants had provided no substantive discovery for a period of over seven months, and mindful that the June 23, 2023, deadline to conclude all discovery was looming, the Court imposed a $5,000.00 sanction for prior violations and drew a line in the sand, granting the defendants a final extension until May 12, 2023, to produce all pending discovery. The Court further justified that deadline based on the fact that discovery should have been compiled for production as far back as thirty (30) days from the date the discovery was first propounded, that is around October 2022, and thirty (30) after any supplemental request. Nevertheless, like a broken record, the Court ordered May 12, 2023, deadline came and went, and defendants failed to comply. This constituted defendants’ fourth occasion of non-compliance and was the second time they flouted a Court order without any explication. Faced with the latest discovery violation, the plaintiff conferred with the defendants in an attempt to finally obtain the past-due discovery without further intervention from the Court. The plaintiff waited for several days to no avail. By May 25, 2023, defendants had not complied with the Court ordered production of discovery, and the plaintiff therefore turned to the Court requesting the imposition of additional sanctions against the defendants. The Court views defendants’ failure to comply with their discovery obligations and the Court order by the extended (grace) period afforded by the plaintiff of May 25, 2023, as the fifth occasion of non-compliance. *14 The sixth occasion occurred when defendants unilaterally granted themselves an extension of time until June 9, 2023, to comply. On July 11, 2023, however, well after the June 23, 2023, official deadline to conclude discovery, the defendants admitted in their Sur-reply that they had not complied even with their self-imposed deadline of June 9, 2023. Clearly the history of the proceedings and the repetition of the defendants’ failure to comply weighs heavily in favor of the imposition of additional sanctions against the defendants for their violations. 2. Severity of the violations The next factor to consider is the severity of the defendants’ violations. The record of non-compliance by the defendants in this case is self-evident, as described, egregious on its face, and represents a clear pattern of similar behavior deserving of sanctions. Sometimes courts face misconduct that, while frustrating, is not particularly severe. Angiodynamics, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d at 292, aff'd, 780 F.3d at 429. See Companion Health Services, Inc. v. Kurtz, 675 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2012) (where the plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for sanctions against litigants for failing to meet a single discovery cut-off date and the litigants were unrepresented at that time). On the other end of the spectrum is a case like Remexcel Managerial Consultants, Inc. v. Arlequin, 583 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009), where the defendants refused to produce certain documents. After the court ordered the production, the defendants still resisted. Id. at 49–50. Over time, the defendants violated a number of court orders regarding discovery, with the result that default judgment was eventually entered as a sanction. Id. “The court's choice of sanctions as well as the sternness of its warnings gradually escalated over the course of the litigation in response to defendants’ persistently troublesome conduct.” Id. at 52. In the end, the defendants’ consistent refusal to abide by the court's rulings warranted the heavy sanction. See also Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1106 (8th Cir. 2004) (entering default judgment against the defendants who refused to produce discovery, refused to participate in negotiations prior to arbitration, refused to participate in arbitration, and consistently violated court orders). In the present case, the defendants’ conduct lines up neatly with Arlequin and Hope Electrical Corporation. Defendants have not just refused to comply with several discovery deadlines but have also refused to comply with at least two Court orders requiring specific discovery by a date certain. Even more so, defendants have continued their obduracy even after the court overruled their objections to providing relevant and discoverable evidence, citing a justification that is inadequate on its face. Furthermore, the warnings to the defendants have been passed over even after they have gradually increased in response to defendants’ persistently troublesome conduct. Not even the $5,000 sanction against the defendants has served its purpose of deterring the defendants’ ever constant and severe violations. In sum, the record confirms the extreme severity of defendants’ actions and the repeated instances of their misconduct. See Angiodynamics, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d at 292, aff'd, 780 F.3d at 429. Furthermore, the defendants readily admitted that they have failed to comply with several discovery deadlines and that they have willingly violated Court orders without proper legal justification. See Docket Nos. 131 and 138. 3. The sanctioned party's justification (or lack thereof) for its failure to disclose, the legitimacy of the excuse for failing to comply, and any mitigating excuse. *15 The legitimacy of defendants’ excuse for failing to comply and the deliberateness of their actions in frustrating discovery can be considered together. For this analysis, the Court also weighs any mitigating issues raised. A litigant's good faith attempt to comply with a discovery rule is generally a legitimate excuse for an inadvertent or unintentional violation. Angiodynamics, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d at 292, aff'd, 780 F.3d at 429. For example, in Malot v. Dorado Beach Cottages Assoc., 478 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2007), the plaintiffs consistently and promptly advised the court and the defendants that the dates of scheduled depositions were problematic. Although the plaintiffs kept requesting extensions, and then one plaintiff failed to be deposed within the discovery deadline, they were not actively attempting to ignore any court order. Id. at 44. They genuinely attempted to comply with their discovery obligations and, in pointing this out, offered a legitimate excuse to avoid a default judgment. Id. at 44-45. Certainly, there can be instances where objections to discovery serve as a legitimate excuse for non-compliance. However, the rule is explicit: the party must have a pending motion for a protective order to invoke that justification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(2).[7] This underscores the principle that a party acting in good faith, attempting to work within the rules, will not face a harsh sanction. Conversely, where the defendant's wrongful intentions are clear from the record as a whole, no credence is given to their purported excuse. In Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 603 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2010), the defendants were sanctioned with default judgment for willfully concealing and destroying evidence. The defendants claimed that they were “guilty only of poor record keeping and accidents,” despite overwhelming evidence, including expert testimony detailing the destruction of electronic documents, demonstrating otherwise. Id. at 94. The basic rule is obvious: a party cannot avoid a Rule 37 sanction where the excuse is contradicted by a record evidencing bad faith. Angiodynamics, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d at 292, aff'd, 780 F.3d at 429-430. In this case, in response to the Motion for Sanctions, defendants do not deny their lack of compliance, they however claimed that they had been supplementing their discovery responses but were unable to timely comply “due to technical difficulties, unforeseen complexity, and an onerous review process which is completely justifiable, considering the impermissibly overbroad nature of the document and information request issued” by the EEOC. The Court finds defendants’ justifications unpersuasive. For starters, the seven-month period between October 2022 and May 2023 was more than sufficient time for defendants to have sorted out any technical difficulties in the production of the discovery materials. Defendants’ failure to progress on that production between May 12, 2023, and July 11, 2023, further evidences a lack of diligence and commitment to abiding by its discovery obligations, the Rules, and the Court's orders. Nine months should have been more than adequate time for defendants to fully meet their discovery obligations in this run of the mill employment discrimination case. They did not. Additionally, the Court ruled the materials requested by the EEOC to be relevant to the plaintiff's case in chief and not overly broad or unduly burdensome. Defendants have not challenged that finding in compliance with the Rules nor have they provided valid justification for their refusal to comply. They must abide by the Court's orders. They did not. In broad strokes, defendants have failed to provide legitimate justifications for their repeated failures to meet discovery deadlines, produce required evidentiary materials, and comply with Court orders. *16 The Court now elaborates on defendants’ more specific justifications for each of their discovery violations. (a) In response to failing to provide timely responses to Interrogatory 1-10 defendants’ counsel stated that the client did not provide the information to its attorneys. (Docket No. 118 at n3.) (Emphasis added). This excuse is unavailing for it is no justification at all. The parties to a proceeding have an affirmative duty to participate in discovery in good faith and to abide by the Rules in responding to any discovery properly propounded upon them. Not responding for no reason at all is simply not allowed. Indeed, a failure to so answer is sanctionable conduct under Rule 37 and may be deemed contemptuous for lack of merit or foundation. (b) To justify why defendants did not timely produce information regarding the decision makers, the defendants claimed that the “Court cannot lose sight that these discovery issues are numerous and require attention and time” and claimed that their production of pending discovery was imminent. Therefore, they requested until June 9, 2023, to comply with the Court's May 5 Order as to the decision maker documents and then never complied. Id. The Court reiterates, seven months is more than adequate time for defendants to provide the personnel records and other materials for individually identified employees. The proffered explanation is also no justification at all. (c) With respect to defendants’ failure to timely produce ESI and ESI metadata, the defendants claimed that after the May 12, 2023, Deadline had expired, they had to hire a new IT company to conduct a new electronic search because their first attempt at producing ESI data resulted in an ineffective blunder. This explanation rings hollow. It is nothing other than effort that is too little, too late. The relevance of the ESI and ESI metadata requests has been apparent since the inception of the requests for production. In waiting until after the May 12, 2023, Deadline to address this obligation defendants demonstrated a lack of diligence that strays away from good faith and rises to the level of contempt. (d) Regarding their failure to produce documents related to the joint-employer liability issue, the defendants claim that being ordered to produce the materials within seven days from the May 5 Hearing was unduly burdensome. The defendants’ proffered justifications are unconvincing. At the outset, it is worth repeating that these documents had been requested by the EEOC as far back as September 2022. There is no justification for defendants to have been unable to gather the responsive materials (materials which they claim consists of a single, heavily-redacted services agreement) in over a seven-month period and to have them available for production well past the Court's deadline and in response to the Motion for Sanctions. Furthermore, if the defendants were certain of their inability to comply with the Court ordered production of these materials by the May 12, 2023, Deadline, as they now claim, it was incumbent upon them to notify the Court before the deadline elapsed and to request an extension of time to comply. They did not do that. Instead, they knowingly disregarded the Court's order without good cause. *17 Even more egregious is the fact that defendants also failed to produce the materials by either the May 25, 2023, deadline the Court deems as a “grace period” from the EEOC or by the June 9, 2023, deadline, which they advised was sufficient to achieve compliance. They only produced incomplete and evasive responses after the June 23, 2023, deadline to conclude all discovery had passed. The materials they produced do not justify the undue delay in their production. (e) Defendants are also openly defying the Court's orders instructing them to produce relevant and non-privileged evidence. More specifically, discovery requests propounded to TSM and TSV, which they have unavailingly claimed relate to information in the hands of their affiliates.[8] Defendants’ position fails for various reasons. First, their position is a blatant violation of the Rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1) establishes that a failure to respond to an interrogatory “is not excused on the ground that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for protective order under Rule 26(c).” Here, even after the Court ordered the production of relevant and non-privileged material in the possession of TSV and TSM, defendants maintain their refusal to produce such discovery based solely on their objection. The fatal flaw with this position is that defendants have not sought a protective order and the rule is explicit: the defendants must have a pending motion for a protective order to invoke that justification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(2). Their baseless claim demonstrates they are not acting in good faith or attempting to work within the Rules. It entirely undermines defendants’ credibility. Second, while the defendants disagree with the Court's ruling on relevance with respect to the production of discovery related to their affiliates, they have not sought review of the Court's order by the presiding judge pursuant to Rule 72. This also undermines the defendants’ justifications and further paints a picture of obstinacy. Even more egregious, however, is the fact that the Court has learned through the parties’ filings that TSM, TSV, and their “affiliates,” all share a common database and the information requested by the EEOC has been readily available to TSM and TSV from a single source, the Cornerstone Application Portal, since the inception of the parties’ discovery disputes. Yet, defendants remain firm in their refusal to abide by the Court's order merely because they disagree with the Court's prior ruling. This is not a valid reason to disobey a court order. Defendants’ continued failure to abide by their discovery obligations and their open defiance of the Court's order is deliberate, contumacious, and unjustified. (f) Besides failing to provide a reasonable basis for their violations, defendants also seek to shift responsibility for their shortcomings on to the plaintiff and the Court. To begin with, they claim the materials requested by plaintiff are overbroad and the production is too onerous, however, there is no indication that defendants were providing adequate partial productions as the material was gathered, nor did they describe in any way why the material was too onerous to produce. Such an objection to producing discovery is nothing more than a hollow boilerplate response that does not serve to justify a failure to produce. This is especially true considering that the Court had already found on the record during the May 5 Hearing, after listening to argument from counsel, that the discovery requested was relevant and was neither overbroad nor unduly burdensome. *18 As for defendants attempt to blame the villainous judge for setting an “impossible” 7-day discovery deadline, their claim lacks merit. The May 12, 2023, Deadline constituted, in essence, the final of several extensions of time to produce discovery requested by the EEOC in September 2022. If defendants had proceeded in good faith with reasonable diligence, they would have been fully capable of meeting that obligation. Furthermore, in the sea of justifications proffered by the defendants they have not once taken any responsibility for their own actions or inactions in this case. For these reasons, the Court is unpersuaded by the defendants’ proffered justifications. In sum, the legitimacy of the proffered justification, mitigating excuses, and the degree of deliberateness factors all support the imposition of sanctions against the defendants. 4. The prejudice to the plaintiff. The Court turns now to the next factor, namely, prejudice to the other side associated with the discovery violations. In their filings, the defendants have not argued that their incomplete, deficient, and belated disclosures have not harmed the EEOC in its ability to prosecute its case because they cannot so argue. The Defendants’ misconduct during discovery has not only been offensive in itself but has resulted in severe, manifest, and unfair prejudice to plaintiff. The record extensively supports the proposition that the EEOC has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial prejudice. The following are just a few examples of that prejudice. First, in this case, the EEOC is standing in the shoes of the Charging Party, Ms. Ivelisse González, who has alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101-12213 (“ADA”), for failing to accommodate her after she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, which is known to cause pain throughout the entire body. (Docket No. 61 at 2-3). Fibromyalgia allegedly impacts Ms. González’ ability to walk, bend, lift, drive and take care of herself. After her diagnosis, Ms. González alleges that she applied to at least nine different vacant positions for which she was qualified at TSV and TSM and several of their affiliates. Nevertheless, between November 2018 and November 2020, Ms. González was not transferred to any of the jobs for which she applied and for which she says she was qualified. Id. at 3. Because Ms. González is an employee of one or more of the defendants, she finds herself in an obviously inferior position with respect to her access to information to support her allegations. Certainly, the lion's share of the documents relevant to this case is within the exclusive custody and control of the defendants. Defendants, no doubt, understand that fact and that without discovery neither the EEOC, nor Ms. González, would be able to substantiate the allegations of discrimination. Indeed, all the documents requested in discovery go to the heart of the issues raised in the case. Defendants’ failure to produce discovery has had a devastatingly prejudicial impact on the plaintiff. Second, because of defendants’ stonewalling and lack of engagement in good faith discovery, and because of the fast-approaching deadline to conclude all discovery, the plaintiff was forced to take the depositions of several key corporate officials blindly without the benefit of important information to assist during the depositions and to test the veracity of their testimony. Such a circumstance takes plaintiff's already inferior position and multiplies it by an order of magnitude. Such imbalance is precisely what the Rules were designed to prevent. *19 Third, even though the EEOC has requested authorization from the Court to re-open certain depositions, precisely because it was forced to take depositions blindly without the benefit of full and relevant discovery, it is unlikely that merely reopening the depositions will completely eradicate the prejudice experienced by the EEOC who was forced to take incomplete depositions in the first place. Like all cases, the taking of depositions has its own strategies and forcing a party to take an incomplete deposition shatters any attempt at developing a coherent litigation strategy. Moreover, the need to start and restart a deposition interrupts the process of developing admissible evidence for trial and the process of developing admissible evidence at the summary judgment stage. See also, Amoah v. McKinney, 875 F.3d 60, 63 (1st Cir. 2017); Lohnes v. Level 3 Commc'ns, Inc., 272 F.3d 49, 60 (1st Cir. 2001) (holding that “[t]his is exactly the type of unfair tactical advantage that the disclosure rules were designed to eradicate.”) Fourth, the prejudice to plaintiff is compounded when viewed in conjunction with the serial pattern of discovery violations. Not only have defendants refused to produce relevant material since the inception of discovery and throughout the course of this litigation, but they refused to produce Court-ordered discovery by the Court's final deadline of May 12, 2023, which would have allowed time for the parties to complete discovery within the Court's case management deadlines and adequately prepare for the next stages in this litigation. Fifth, defendants’ flouting of their discovery obligations and Court orders further undermined the plaintiff's ability to prepare a complete and meaningful motion for summary judgment. Compliance with the June 23, 2023, deadline to conclude all discovery was critical for the parties to have time to prepare and file their cross motions for summary judgment by August 7, 2023. Indeed, the plaintiff was forced to file a dispositive motion without the benefit of full and fair discovery. Defendants’ conduct is compounded by the pendency of their own motions for summary judgment, which plaintiff is now faced with opposing without the basic opportunity of having fair, complete, and relevant discovery. Further evidence of the prejudice the EEOC continues to face because of defendants’ unjustified failure to make relevant and Court-ordered discovery disclosures can be found in the EEOC's recent filing from August 4, 2023. There, the EEOC indicated that defendants had yet to produce most of the discovery identified in the Motion for Sanctions filed on May 25, 2023. In a nutshell, the prejudice to the EEOC is obvious. Defendants’ failure to produce discovery that is critical to plaintiff's ability to prove its allegations weighs heavily in favor of imposing sanctions. 5. The prejudice to the operations of the Court. Finally, the Court considers the late disclosure's impact on the district court's docket. “District courts have an interest in the efficient management of its docket.” Santiago-Lampon v. Real Legacy Assur. Co., 293 F.R.D. 86, 91 (D.P.R. 2013). It follows that “[w]henever a party, without good cause, neglects to comply with reasonable deadlines, the court's ability to manage its docket is compromised.” Id. Moreover, a court's interest in administering its docket is strong and “the court's efforts at stewardship are undermined where, as here, a party cavalierly flouts the court's scheduling orders.” Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir. 2002). Defendants’ discovery violations have severely injured this Court's ability to manage its busy docket effectively. It suffices to say that the Court has had to deal with motions to compel, multiple discovery motions, multiple motions for sanctions, multiple orders to assist the parties with discovery, and has even held a discovery hearing, and yet the parties appear no closer than several months ago to resolving the matters in dispute. Furthermore, the fact that the parties have now filed dispositive motions without the benefit of full and fair discovery wastes judicial resources by requiring the Court to review incomplete or inaccurate motions that might result in an unnecessary trial because the parties were impeded from fully developing the factual and legal issues at the summary judgment stage. It is indeed disappointing that the merits of the case have taken a back seat to the parties’ discovery disputes. *20 Defendants have engaged in a deliberate pattern of stonewalling, which has frustrated effective discovery and the progress of the case. The prejudice to the Court's operations is thus evident and weighs in favor of sanctions. 6. Adequacy of lesser sanctions. If a sanction less drastic than the specific sanction requested by the EEOC for each discovery violation would accomplish the goals of punishment and deterrence, such a penalty is, of course, appropriate. Angiodynamics, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d at 294, aff'd, 780 F.3d at 429. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the proposed sanctions by the EEOC, and those ultimately recommended here by the Court, are justified given the circumstances presented here. As the First Circuit has said, if “the sanction fits the misconduct, a trial court is not obliged to withhold the sanction until it has first slapped the offender on the wrist.” Hooper–Haas v. Ziegler Holdings, LLC, 690 F.3d 34, 38–39 (1st Cir. 2012). Given that defendants have already been sanctioned and warned that in the event of future non-compliance further sanctions will follow, and they have continued to engage in severe discovery violations, it is clear that any other remedy would fail to address the seriousness of defendants’ misconduct. 7. Sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court also considers: (1) whether the offending party was given sufficient notice, and (2) whether the offending party has been given an opportunity to explain its noncompliance or argue for a lesser penalty. Vallejo, 607 F.3d at 8. In this action, defendants have taken advantage of their opportunity to respond at length to all the arguments offered by the EEOC in support of further sanctions. They have been on notice of the specific sanctions requested by the EEOC for each discovery violation since the Motion for Sanctions was filed. The Court had also explicitly warned defendants that further sanctions could be imposed in the event of further violations. In sum, no argument can be made here that defendants have been caught off guard or deprived of an opportunity to respond fully and adequately. Defendants have suffered no procedural prejudice. See Angiodynamics, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d at 290-91, aff'd, 780 F.3d at 429. 8. All relevant factors considered by the Court warrant the imposition of additional sanctions against defendants. To conclude, in the present case, defendants’ late and/or incomplete disclosures and their failure to comply with the Court's discovery orders have neither been “substantially justified” nor “harmless.” See González-Rivera, 931 F.3d at 27–28. So, in assaying the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the lion's share of the pertinent factors weighs in favor of the imposition of further sanctions against the defendants. See Samaan, 670 F.3d at 37. Sanctions are necessary to properly address defendants’ misconduct because it challenges both the Rules and the Court's authority. “[T]he judicial process depends heavily on the judge's credibility. To ensure such credibility, a district judge must often be firm in managing crowded dockets and demanding adherence to announced deadlines.” Legault v. Zambrano, 105 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 1997). “If he or she sets a reasonable due date, parties should not be allowed casually to flout it or painlessly to escape the foreseeable consequences of noncompliance.” Id. (citing Méndez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir. 1990)). “Scheduling orders are essential tools for modern-day case management and litigants flout such orders at their peril.” González-Rivera, 931 F.3d at 25; See also, Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 45-46 (1st Cir. 2002). *21 Moreover, “[c]ourts cannot function smoothly if parties, and counsel, ignore the rules, overlook due dates, or flout court orders. In this sense, sanctions may be a useful tool in vindicating the court's authority, reminding those who need reminding of the protocol, and ensuring orderliness in the judicial process.” Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 900 F.2d 388 (1st Cir. 1990). “A court faced with a disobedient litigant has wide latitude to choose from among an armamentarium of available sanctions.” Hooper-Haas v. Ziegler Holdings, LLC, 690 F.3d 34, 37 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Jones v. Winnepesaukee Realty, 990 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, the only question remaining for the Court now is what sanction is appropriate for each of the defendants’ discovery violations. B. Sanctions for each identified discovery violation. In its Motion for Sanctions, the EEOC identified six (6) different discovery violations and requested the imposition of sanctions for each violation. The Court discusses each violation and the corresponding recommended sanction in turn. 1. Defendant's failure to respond to Interrogatory 1-10. The Court finds that defendants’ failure to respond to Interrogatory 1-10 warrants the imposition of sanctions. The plaintiff recommends that the sanction be in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), namely “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.” As it relates to the facts of this case, therefore, plaintiff seeks an order from the Court prohibiting both TSV and TSM from supporting or introducing evidence at trial or at summary judgment that other employees were transferred as a reasonable accommodation, which is the information not responded to. The Court finds that this sanction is reasonable considering defendants’ open, defiant, and unjustified refusal to provide discovery on the subject. As provided in Rule 37(d)(1) and (d)(2), a party may not fail to respond to an interrogatory on the ground that it deems the discovery sought objectionable unless the disobedient party has a pending motion for protective order under Rule 26(c) pending. Here, defendants have neither filed the requisite motion for protective order under Rule 26(c), nor have they even sought review under Rule 72 of the Court's order requiring that defendants produce such material in discovery. Simply put, the defendants lack any justification whatsoever for failing to abide by the Court's order and produce such information in in a timely manner. Judicial decisions about sanctions cannot be made solely from the perspective of one party to the case but, rather, must strike an equitable balance between the rights and responsibilities of all the affected parties. González-Rivera, 931 F.3d at 28-29. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court's May 12, 2023, Deadline, when seen against a record of continued discovery delays, non-compliance with other discovery deadlines, intransigence, and lack of cooperation in the discovery process, serves sufficient to impose the sanction requested by the EEOC. The Court, therefore, RECOMMENDS, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), that TSV and TSM be prohibited from supporting or introducing evidence at trial or through summary judgment that other employees were transferred as a reasonable accommodation. To guarantee the fairness of the litigation, and ensure compliance with the previous Court order, the Court also ORDERS that defendants fully and accurately respond to Interrogatory 1-10 within seven (7) days of this Report and Recommendation. 2. Documents pertaining to decision makers. *22 The Court finds that the defendants’ failure to provide timely discovery as to documents pertaining to the decision makers also warrants the imposition of sanctions. The plaintiff requests that the Court treat the failure to obey the Court's order as a contempt of court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). During the May 5 Hearing, the Court found the documents requested by the EEOC to be relevant and the discovery requests in question not overly broad nor unduly burdensome, but rather of the type routinely requested and exchanged in discrimination cases. (Docket No. 117). The Court also indicated that unreasonably maintaining generic and boilerplate objections to producing relevant and proper discovery, without any reasonable attempts at offering truthful and real answers to them, would not be allowed. Id. The Court therefore ordered defendants to reasonably and sensibly produce the documentation requested pertaining to the identified decision makers. Id. Notwithstanding such order, the defendants have stood in open defiance and have refused to provide any information related to the decision makers by the Court's deadline. And, similar to their conduct regarding information dealing with the transfer of employees as a reasonable accommodation, the defendants have not sought a protective order as to information related to decision makers, nor have they sought review by the presiding judge under Rule 72 of the Court's order. Accordingly, the defendants have no excuse for not following the Court's order. Due to such failure to comply with the Court's order, plaintiff recommends that defendants’ counsel be sanctioned personally due to their open defiance of the Court's orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). Having studied the issue, the Court agrees with that recommendation and further finds that defense counsel's open defiance of the Court's order also constitutes a violation of ABA Model Rules of Professional Responsibility 3.4(c) and 3.4(d),[9] which provide in relevant part as follows: A lawyer shall not: * * * (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; Model Code of Pro. Resp. r. 3.4 (Am. Bar Ass'n 2019) (Emphasis added). *23 In this case, despite their open defiance of the Court's discovery order, the defendants have failed to make a plausible assertion that the Court's order is somehow invalid, illegal, or that they have no obligation to produce discovery related to the decision makers. See Model Rule 3.4(c). Moreover, defendants’ intransigence also constitutes a violation Model Rule 3.4(d) by failing to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party. Given, counsel's open refusal to comply with the Court's discovery orders, the Court finds the defendants, Attorney Enrique Del Cueto and Attorney Jaime Sanabria in contempt of court for refusing to produce relevant discovery related to the decision makers. The sanction for such contempt of court finding, however, will be discussed further in Section III(B)(6) below. With respect to this violation, the Court ORDERS defendants to produce all documents related to the decision makers within seven (7) days from the entry of this Report and Recommendation. The production of these materials remains essential to allow plaintiff to prepare for trial. 3. ESI and ESI Metadata After having sought to compel evidence of ESI and ESI metadata in several of its prior Motions to Compel and Motions for Sanctions, the EEOC finally indicated that the defendants completed their ESI production on June 14, 2023. While the Court finds that there have been clear violations of its orders regarding this matter, the EEOC did not request a specific sanction with respect to the defendant's failure to produce the ESI and ESI metadata by the Court-ordered deadline. For that reason, the Court RECOMMENDS that no sanction be imposed for this violation at this time. The Court also ORDERS defendants to certify forthwith that they have in fact complied with a complete and adequate ESI and ESI metadata production forthwith. 4. Information that is relevant to the issue of joint employer and/or integrated enterprise theories of liability. Defendants did not produce any documents pertaining to the EEOC's specific discovery requests relevant to the issue of joint employer and/or integrated theories of liability until August 3, 2023, well past the May 12, 2023, Deadline, and the June 23, 2023, deadline to conclude all discovery. The production was also incomplete and evasive. As a sanction for defendants’ unjustified delay and failure to produce materials in response to this discovery request, the EEOC requested that the Court designate as established the fact that TSM and TSV are liable as joint employers or as an integrated enterprise under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i). In the EEOC's view, such a sanction is warranted because defendants’ “abhorrent discovery conduct continues to go unchecked and continues to prejudice the EEOC. None of the actions taken by the Court thus far—issuing discovery orders and deadlines [or] awarding sanctions—has put a stop to [d]efendants[’] ongoing discovery misconduct.” (Docket No. 152). The Court finds that defendants conduct regarding this request for production of documents warrants the imposition of the sanction requested. Defendants were fully aware that the allegations of joint employer or common enterprise liability was going to be a crucial matter in this litigation as far back as March 13, 2023, when their Motion to Dismiss was denied by the Court. They chose, nevertheless, to stonewall any discovery regarding this issue despite also being fully aware that under the Rules “[p]arties 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). Their conduct was unjustified. *24 Defendants’ unjustified failure to comply with the Court's May 12, 2023, Deadline, when seen against a record of continued discovery delays, non-compliance with discovery deadlines, obstinacy, lack of accountability, and lack of cooperation in the discovery process, is sufficient to impose the sanction requested by the EEOC. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), that the fact that TSM and TSV are liable as joint employers or as an integrated enterprise in the present litigation be designated as established. 5. Supplemental responses to address TSV's prior deficient interrogatory responses. As a sanction for failing to properly respond to Interrogatories 1-2, 1-3 and 1-9, directed at TSV and TSM, the EEOC requested that the Court apply a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i), “designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims.” Specifically, the EEOC requests that the Court designate the following facts as established: (1) that the claimant applied to the nine (9) positions referenced in the discovery requests; (2) that the nine (9) positions were vacant at the time that the claimant applied to them; and (3) that the claimant was qualified for the vacant positions to which she applied. The EEOC further argues that, at minimum, defendants should be precluded from arguing, stating, or inferring that the claimant did not apply to the nine (9) positions referenced in the discovery requests; that the nine (9) positions referenced in the discovery requests were not vacant; or that the claimant was not qualified for the nine (9) positions referenced in the discovery requests. The Court finds that defendants’ failure to answer the propounded interrogatories and production of documents regarding this matter is wholly unjustified. The materials have been readily available from a single source throughout the litigation and defendants were always capable of preparing and providing adequate and complete answers, but simply chose not to do so. This position, undertaken despite also failing to submit a request for relief from their discovery obligations under Rule 26(c), or any other statute or rule of law, bespeaks of belligerent and obstructive practices that violate the spirit and objective of the Rules and our judicial process. Accordingly, defendants’ unjustified failure to comply with the Court's May 12, 2023, Deadline, when seen against a record of continued discovery delays, unjustified non-compliance with discovery deadlines, obstinacy, lack of accountability, and lack of cooperation in the discovery process, is sufficient to impose the requested sanctions by the EEOC pursuant to Rule 37. Under the circumstances, the Court therefore RECOMMENDS the imposition of the lesser of the two recommended sanctions against the defendants, namely that defendants be precluded from arguing, stating, or inferring that the claimant did not apply to the nine (9) positions referenced in the discovery requests; that the nine (9) positions referenced in the discovery requests were not vacant; or that the claimant was not qualified for the nine (9) positions referenced in the discovery requests. The Court further ORDERS that defendants produce the supplemental responses they identified had already been prepared, and all pertinent information and materials necessary to make those responses adequate and correct, within seven (7) days from the entry of this Report and Recommendation. 6. Responses to the EEOC's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production to TSM. *25 There is no doubt that defendants failed to comply with the Court's order to adequately supplement TSM's responses to its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Production of Documents by May 12, 2023. Indeed, defendants knowingly flouted the Court's order without notice and without good cause. Such conduct alone is sanctionable. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court's May 12, 2023, Deadline, and their willful disobedience of other Court orders specifically directing the production of relevant and non-privileged discovery, when seen against a record of repeated discovery delays, unjustified non-compliance with discovery deadlines, intransigence, vexatious conduct, and lack of cooperation in the discovery process, is sufficient to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37. An order from the Court is not an invitation, to be sure, it is a directive to be followed. While parties may of course disagree with court rulings and avail themselves of the procedural avenues for challenging them—in adherence with the law and procedural rules—they must tread lightly. In such cases where reasonable minds might disagree parties may seek adequate relief. But where a Court order is in place, parties cannot casually and without justification flout an order expecting there to be no consequence. The EEOC did not request a specific sanction with respect to this discovery violation. Nevertheless, the Court finds that defendants’ and their counsel's open defiance of a lawful Court order without an assertion that no valid obligation exists constitutes contumacious conduct by defendant TSM and by counsel and a violation of Model Rules 3.4(c) and 3.4(d) by counsel. Taking into consideration the contumacious conduct discussed in Section III(B)(2) above, as well as the contumacious conduct described in this section, and considering the violations of Model Rules 3.4(c) and 3.4(d), the Court finds that a monetary sanction in the amount of $3,000 against each counsel Enrique del Cueto and Jaime Sanabria is sufficient but not more than necessary to punish their past contumacious conduct in this case and to prevent such conduct from being repeated in the future. Accordingly, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that Attorney Enrique del Cueto and Attorney Jaime Sanabria be sanctioned in their personal capacities by ORDERING each to pay the amount of $3,000 to the “Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court.” The Court also ORDERS TSM to respond to the EEOC's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production within seven (7) days from the entry of this Report and Recommendation. 7. Additional Remedial Measures. With respect to defendants’ privilege log, the EEOC maintains that defendants have not produced a privilege log, nor have they indicated whether they are withholding documents based on any privilege. In response, the defendants asserted that they “have yet to claim privilege in any of their responses, [the reason] for which no privilege log has been prepared.” That said, defendants nevertheless argued that “much of the ESI material is privileged, for which it is currently preparing a privilege log to be produced simultaneously with the ESI.” The Court will hold defendants to their word and RECOMMENDS that defendants be precluded from raising privilege as a justification for failing to respond or produce discovery as to any interrogatories or requests for production propounded by EEOC, other than those claims of privilege included in any responses or productions already disclosed and accompanied by a privilege log. Only those documents and materials already identified as privileged will be entitled to such claim for purposes of litigation in this case. The Court also ORDERS that the defendants certify that they complied with producing the privilege log regarding the ESI materials to the EEOC within seven (7) days of the entry of this Report and Recommendation. *26 In addition to the aforementioned discovery violations, in its Motion for Sanctions the EEOC identified several other deficiencies in the defendants’ discovery responses. Though the Court understands the undue impact that defendants repeated discovery violations have inflicted on plaintiff's prosecution strategies, it also believes that the sanctions recommended above should serve sufficient at this juncture to right the wrongs of the past and to prevent future violations. Of course, in the event that defendants’ obstinate conduct continues, additional sanctions could be warranted. IV. Conclusion The discovery problems in this case, which have by now plagued this entire litigation, were wholly caused by the defendants. The Court is troubled by the fact that the prior measures taken—including the imposition of past sanctions—to ensure that defendants put an end to their pattern of noncompliance and ill-advised discovery tactics, and to deter such nefarious conduct in the future, has fallen short. Ortiz-López v. Sociedad Española de Auxilio Mutuo Y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico, 248 F.3d 29, 37 (1st Cir. 2001). It is beyond question that a district court has inherent power to manage its affairs, including “the ability to do whatever is reasonably necessary to deter abuse of the judicial process.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1119 (1st Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). In this case, a specific discovery order was in effect and was thereafter violated by the defendants. It is black-letter law that scheduling orders and discovery orders are essential tools for modern-day case management and litigants flout such orders at their peril. See González-Rivera, 931 F.3d at 25. The discovery violations perpetrated by the defendants, including willfully disregarding the Court's orders, are not at all justifiable. Under Rule 37 the district court maintains a variety of tools at its disposal to sanction a party who violates discovery orders and has wide discretion in choosing sanctions for discovery violations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Santiago–Díaz, 456 F.3d at 275. To that effect, the Court made herein explicit and lengthy findings of egregious discovery abuses by the defendants that precisely support the recommended sanctions under the applicable standard. See Ortiz-López, 248 F.3d at 37. The Court takes no solace in having to recommend sanctions, but in this situation, they are necessary and unavoidable. Indeed, the undersigned evaluated the relevant factors and chose a specific sanction carefully tailored to address each specific discovery violation. See Samaan, 670 F.3d at 37. See also, Barreto v. Citibank, N.A., 907 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1990) (taking note of the “well established principle that discovery orders, other pre-trial orders, and, indeed, all orders governing the management of a case are enforceable under pain of sanction for unjustifiable violation” and holding that dismissal was warranted to deter litigants from misconduct impeding the court's ability to manage its limited resources). When a judge—especially one who has become intimately familiar with a case over the course of several months—appropriately weighs the relevant factors and selects a reasonable sanction for a discovery violation, reviewing courts “cannot, from the remote vista of an algid appellate record, second-guess that choice.” González-Rivera, 931 F.3d at 29, citing Samaan, 670 F.3d at 37. On a last note, the EEOC requested that the Court award it the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the preparation of the Motion for Sanctions. The Court RECOMMENDS that such request be granted and the award of attorney's fees to EEOC for the costs incurred in the preparation of the Motion for Sanctions be imposed as a joint and several liability on both TSV and TSM. See Puerto Rico Medical Emergency Group, Inc. v. Iglesia Episcopal Puertorriquena, Inc., 319 F.R.D. 65, 70 (D.P.R. 2016) (“Regardless of whether the Court ultimately imposes one or more of these sanctions, it must order the disobedient party to pay the reasonable expenses caused by its noncompliance, unless that noncompliance was substantially justified.”). *27 In sum, because defendants’ misconduct during the course of discovery “has traveled well beyond the boundary of what is even remotely acceptable in the conduct of litigation,” the Court RECOMMENDS the abovementioned sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 against the defendants. See Angiodynamics, Inc., 991 F. Supp. 2d at 285, aff'd, 780 F.3d at 429. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. The parties have fourteen days to file any objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to file the same within the specified time waives the right to appeal this Report and Recommendation. Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 150-51 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. Valencia Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986). In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25th day of August 2023. Footnotes [1] This is important to note because in hindsight the Court finds this motion as the start of defendant's pattern of filing frivolous motions and adopting vexatious litigation strategies. [2] See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 34(b)(2). [3] TSV's discovery obligations, however, remained unchanged by the filing of TSM's motion to dismiss. Therefore, any request for production from TSV would have been due in accordance with the deadlines set by the Rules or established by the Court. [4] During the May 5 Hearing, the Court also expressed its consternation at the fact that the defendants had filed a frivolous motion for a protective order (Docket No. 88) seeking to enjoin the plaintiff from deposing an individual whom plaintiff had identified as a person with potentially relevant information regarding this discrimination lawsuit, namely the human resources official who had received notice of the EEOC's charge of discrimination. The defendants broadly claimed that this individual had “minimal knowledge of the facts as alleged in the complaint” and therefore the plaintiff should be enjoined from taking her scheduled deposition. Id. The Court denied this motion for lack of merit. (Docket 96). The Court noted that “a party seeking to quash a deposition in its entirety must show ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances,” a standard that defendants did not allege. Id. The Court held that it would “not prevent a party from taking what appears to be a bona fide deposition of an individual who that party reasonably believes has relevant knowledge of the pertinent facts, absent good cause.” The Court understood the motion for a protective order to have been frivolous and yet another example of defendants’ vexatious litigation strategy. The Court mentioned during the May 5 Hearing that it took this filing, among other things, into consideration in imposing the $5,000 sanction. [5] “IT” stands for “Information Technology,” and is the term used to describe companies or individuals who have expertise in dealing with computers and computer related issues. [6] As clearly anticipated by the parties and the Court, the issue of joint employer liability has now been raised in the recently filed dispositive motions and responses thereto. [7] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1) establishes that a failure to respond to an interrogatory “is not excuse on the ground that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for protective order under Rule 26(c).” (Emphasis added). [8] It goes without saying that defendants may not refuse to produce discovery regarding inter-affiliate transfers as measures of reasonable accommodation, while at the same claim that past inter-affiliate transfers constitute a defense to discrimination in this case. [9] Puerto Rico's Local Rule of Procedure 83E entitled, “Attorney Disciplinary Rules and Enforcement,” provides as follows: (a) Standards for Professional Conduct - Basis for Disciplinary Action. In order to maintain the effective administration of justice and the court integrity, each attorney admitted or permitted to practice before this court shall comply with the standards of professional conduct required by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Model Rules”), adopted by the American Bar Association, as amended, and the Code of Pretrial and Trial Conduct published by the American College of Trial Lawyers, as amended (“Code of Pretrial and Trial Conduct”). Attorneys who are admitted or permitted to practice before this court are expected to be thoroughly familiar with the Model Rules’ and Code of Pretrial and Trial Conduct's standards. Any attorney admitted or permitted to practice before this court may be disbarred, suspended from practice, reprimanded, or subjected to any other disciplinary action for misconduct as the circumstances may warrant, for good cause shown, and after notice and an opportunity to be heard. Acts or omissions by an attorney admitted or permitted to practice before this court, individually or in concert with any other person which violate the Model Rules or the Code of Pretrial and Trial Conduct, shall constitute misconduct and shall be grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship or in the course of judicial proceedings. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, all counsel in the proceedings are bound by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.