William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet, Act III, Sc. 1.
Plaintiff Maria Ramirez-Cruz sued her former employer, Defendant Chipotle. Whether or not she was scheduled for work on particular days was relevant to the case.
Defendant Chipotle “initially withheld” scheduling information from its employee shift scheduling (via its computerized MenuLink system) “because it was inaccurate.”
Also, incidentally, the evidence on Chipotle’s MenuLink system was unfavorable to Chipotle. The information (or misinformation?) on MenuLink contradicted Chipotle’s assertion that Ms. Ramirez-Cruz was scheduled for work during a particular 3-day period.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kate M. Menendez (D. Minn.) found that Chipotle’s lawyer’s behavior left “much to be desired” but did not meet the high bar required to impose sanctions. In reviewing Judge Menendez’s denial of the motion for sanctions, U.S. District Court Judge Ann D. Montgomery (D. Minn.) explained
[A]lthough “Chipotle’s approach to the discovery obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not substantially justified, and ordinarily . . . would warrant the imposition of sanctions,” Judge Menendez concluded that sanctions were inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) because counsel to Ramirez-Cruz were also culpable in unnecessarily multiplying litigation.
This is in the nature of an “unclean hands” equitable resolution (“A dirty dog will not have justice by the court“).
One might think of Judge Menendez’s denial of the motion for sanctions against Lawyer A as the imposition of a cross sanction on Lawyer B, also known as killing two birds with one stone.