TAIKA BLAIER, Plaintiff, v. AMPS STAFFING, INC.; DARANA HYBRID, INC.; and DARRYL CUTTELL, Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-02324-AT-RDC United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division Filed May 27, 2022 Cannon, Regina D., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Following a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Parameters for Proceeding with ESI Discovery, (Doc. 154), the undersigned orders the following in advance of the parties' private mediation scheduled for July 7, 2022: 1. Defendants shall produce all evidence per the Joint Supplemental Discovery Plan no later than June 7, 2022. 2. At the time of production: (a) Confidential Designations: All documents that Defendants in good faith consider confidential are to be marked as such. Over-designation will result in a waiver of confidential treatment. (b) Privilege Log: All documents/contents of documents withheld by Defendants as privileged or which have information redacted will be logged on a privilege log that meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Failure to properly log documents shall result in a waiver of privilege. (c) Claw Back: The production of a privileged documents will not be considered inadvertent, but Defendants may claw them back upon showing that Defendants: (i) took reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure and (ii) promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error. 3. The parties are directed to confer with the mediator (either separately and/or collectively) no later than June 20, 2022 to address: (a) Defendants' Compliance: Whether Defendants produced all evidence per the Joint Supplemental Discovery Plan by June 7, 2022. If they have not, the parties are directed to jointly file a status report regarding the status of ESI discovery by June 22, 2022. If they cannot agree as to the status, the parties may file separately. (b) Timeframe/Scope of Projects: The timeframe for the projects that are going to be mediated. (i) By June 20, 2022, Plaintiff is directed to provide Defendants with a reasonable timeframe for projects that she proposes to be the subject of the mediation. (ii) The Court is expressly not requiring an agreement as to timeframe for purposes of discovery. This timeframe is solely for purposes of mediation and will not be deemed an admission or waiver of future arguments. The parties may not use the agreed upon timeframe if it becomes an issue for the Court to resolve. (c) Financial Information: Whether the parties have sufficient evidence for those projects such that, at mediation, they are prepared to address all financial aspects related to those projects. At least seven (7) days prior to the mediation: Defendants are directed to confirm in writing that they have produced all documents related to the projects that fall within the timeframe to be used for mediation. This will not relieve Defendants from their obligation to fully comply with Joint Supplemental Discovery Plan. 4. The parties shall follow and abide by any scheduling orders issued by the mediator. 5. The parties are expected to meet the deadlines in this Order or, if they cannot, move for an extension of time from the Court before the expiration of the deadline. Failure to abide by the deadlines and directives set forth in this Order may result in sanctions. *2 Finally, the undersigned GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's request for Defendants to pay the expenses incurred in the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Parameters for Proceeding with ESI Discovery, (Doc. 154), as well as her supplement filing, (Doc. 159). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the Court to sanction a party for discovery abuses through Rule 26(g). Rule 26(g) requires an attorney of record to sign every discovery request, response, or objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). By signing, an attorney certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry that a discovery request, response, or objection is: (i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law; (ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B); In re Delta/AirTran Fee Antitrust Litig., 846 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1349–50 (N.D. Ga. 2012). Rule 26(g) “imposes an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discovery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the spirit and purposes of Rules 26 through 37.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) advisory committee's note. If a party violates these rules “without substantial justification,” the Court may impose sanctions against the attorney or the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3). Discovery sanctions may be imposed for several purposes: “1) compensating the court and other parties for the added expense caused by the abusive conduct; 2) compelling discovery; 3) deterring others from engaging in similar conduct; and 4) penalizing the guilty party or attorney.” Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., Inc., 775 F.2d 1440, 1453 (11th Cir. 1985). This Court has broad discretion to fashion sanctions appropriate to the individual case. See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993); Properties Int'l Ltd. v. Turner, 706 F.2d 308, 310 (11th Cir. 1983) (“It is settled law that the imposition of sanctions for failure to provide discovery rests with the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned absent abuse of that discretion.”). Despite that discretion, the Court must develop a sufficient record by stating its justification for the sanction and providing an accounting of the award imposed. Carlucci, 775 F.2d at 1453. Following the briefing of Plaintiff's Motion and a hearing, the undersigned finds that sanctions are appropriate under Rule 26(g). As exhibits attached to Plaintiff's Motion make clear, Defendants failed to timely respond to multiple requests about producing ESI discovery. During the hearing, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants had not provided the ESI vendor access to the subject documents until May 25, 2022—the day Defendants were ordered to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion—and Defendants did not object to that assertion. Defendants' conduct continues to delay progress in resolving this case, and their only justification for the delay is “security concerns” that had to be addressed before ESI discovery could begin. Discovery in this case was scheduled to end on March 31, 2022; the parties were ordered to continue discovery until mediation was scheduled; and an order staying discovery was not entered until April 4, 2022. (Docs. 142, 152). Thus, Defendants delayed in providing the necessary access to the ESI vendor nearly two months after discovery was due to be complete, while ignoring multiple attempts at communication from Plaintiff about ESI discovery. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that sanctions are applicable and GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's request for expenses. The provided relief will be limited to attorney's fees and costs incurred in preparing and briefing Plaintiff's Motion for Parameters for Proceeding with ESI Discovery, (Doc. 154). Plaintiff's request is DENIED IN PART to the extent she requests Defendants pay the expenses related to the filing of her supplemental brief, (Doc. 159). *3 Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit within fourteen (14) days a declaration detailing the fees and expenses she incurred from preparing the motion. No fees or costs will be awarded for any expenses incurred later than May 12, 2022. IT IS SO ORDERED on this 27th day of May 2022.