## Facts

- Ryan W. Poole, by his mother and next friend Barbara Elliott, sued Textron, Inc. in a products-liability action alleging serious injuries caused by defects in a golf car.
- The district judge referred discovery disputes to a magistrate judge.
- Plaintiff filed three discovery motions: (1) for sanctions alleging multiple categories of discovery abuse, (2) to compel production, and (3) to test the sufficiency of answers and objections to requests for admission.
- After a hearing, the magistrate judge granted the motions in part and ordered Textron to conduct additional investigation and provide fuller discovery responses, while deferring a decision on fees and other sanctions pending remedial steps and further submissions.
- Textron objected to several discovery rulings; the district judge rejected the objections and affirmed the rulings.
- The parties then litigated the remaining question of attorneys’ fees, costs, and other sanctions, supported by affidavits on time and rates.
- The court found repeated discovery failures, including incomplete production, inaccurate interrogatory answers, an unprepared Rule 30(b)(6) designee, refusal to answer deposition questions, lack of candor, and an effort to conceal the existence of a relevant 1998 GX-440 golf car in Textron’s possession.

## Issues

1. Whether Textron’s discovery conduct and positions were “substantially justified” such that sanctions should be denied.
2. Whether, and to what extent, the court should award expenses (including attorneys’ fees) and impose other sanctions for the discovery violations.
3. Whether sanctions could be imposed on both Textron and its attorneys based on deficient investigation and certifications in discovery responses.

## Decision

- The court held Textron’s discovery responses, objections, and overall conduct were not substantially justified.
- The court awarded monetary sanctions of $37,258.39 in expenses, including attorneys’ fees.
- The court imposed the monetary sanctions against Textron and its attorneys.
- The court declined to impose more severe non-monetary sanctions (such as default-type relief), stopping short of a specific bad-faith finding.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g), counsel’s signature on discovery responses certifies that a reasonable inquiry has been made and that responses and objections are complete and proper; failure to make that inquiry supports sanctions.
- Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, when discovery misconduct leads to motions to compel or related relief, the court may order payment of reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, absent substantial justification.
- A party’s later compliance with discovery obligations does not eliminate responsibility for prior discovery violations; sanctions may be used to penalize misconduct and deter repetition.
- For Rule 30(b)(6), a corporate designee must be prepared to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization, not merely the witness’s personal knowledge.
- In determining sanctions, a court may allocate responsibility between the litigant and counsel where both contributed to unjustified discovery failures.
- For document production, “control” can include documents a party has the legal right or ability to obtain, even if not in its physical possession.

## Conclusion

The court ordered Textron and its attorneys to pay $37,258.39 for pervasive, unjustified discovery abuse—marked by inadequate investigation, incomplete production, improper objections, and an unprepared corporate designee—while limiting relief to monetary sanctions rather than imposing case-dispositive measures.


Poole ex rel. Elliott v. Textron, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 494 (D. Md. 2000)