United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
May 6, 2015
VENUS SPRINGS, Plaintiff,
ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., f/k/a FMAC INC., YEQUIANG HE, AMY BOUQUE, CYNTHIA DAUTRICH, KATHLEEN PATTERSON, Defendants.
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on review of an Order (#124) issued by the Honorable David Keesler, United States Magistrate Judge, in the matter of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (#114). The parties fully briefed the motion before the magistrate judge entered his Order. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Order (#130), which have also been fully briefed.
The court has carefully considered the proceedings in this case and the appropriate course of action at this stage. Initial review of the magistrate judge's order and the law governing the sanctioning authority of this court indicates that it would be appropriate for the court to review the magistrate judge's decision de novo.  The court also finds that a hearing on Plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's order would be appropriate and will therefore calendar a hearing for the next available civil motions day. At the hearing, Plaintiff shall be required to show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned for her failure to comply with the protective order issued on December 2, 2014 as of the time of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions. Specifically, Plaintiff shall be required to show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) for her continued use of video obtained during discovery in this case, in the form of "screen shots" of such video, in direct violation of this court's protective order, which clearly required that "No party shall publish or disseminate audio or video recordings obtained during discovery in this action without prior permission of the Court." (#104). Plaintiff shall additionally be required to show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned pursuant to this court's inherent authority to sanction litigants for bad faith conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff must explain to this court how her continued dissemination of video obtained during discovery in the form of "screen shots" through her YouTube site can have possibly been in good faith when she had received two explicit directives from this court to remove such video from the internet. (#104, 113).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Clerk of Court calendar a hearing on Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order (#130) for the next civil motions day.