A recent Texas Lawyer story, “Burlington Northern Santa Fe Seeks $16K in Attorney Fees After Court Grants Sanctions Against Race Discrimination Plaintiff” reports that Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) is seeking $16,487 in attorney fees after a federal judge granted the railroad company's motion for sanctions and spoliation of evidence against a plaintiff claiming racial discrimination and her attorney.
The dollar figure was included in a Feb. 22 filing showing evidence of reasonable attorney fees, filed by BNSF, which is being represented by Russell Cawyer, a Kelly Hart & Hallman partner.
A mid-December deposition had prompted both sides in the litigation to seek sanctions against each other. In its motion for sanctions and spoliation, BNSF had alleged that plaintiff Kasonia Carter and her lawyer, Hiram McBeth, a Dallas solo, removed papers from a folder used to prepare for the deposition before giving the folder to BNSF lawyers. According to the BNSF motion, Carter was required by a court order to give the railroad company the entire contents of the folder but failed to do so.
Carter, who is a former BNSF employee, alleged in her sanctions motion and an attached affidavit that Cawyer, even before the deposition began, "stormed into" the room and "demanded in a loud voice to know what I had in my purse and in my personal possession that related to this case." She also alleged Cawyer used "a menacing tone" and demanded that she show the contents of her purse and that she empty it on the table for him to inspect. The affidavit also alleged that Carter felt sexually harassed by Cawyer's actions during the deposition.
Cawyer denied the allegations.
Following a Jan. 14 evidentiary hearing, U.S. District Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cureton of the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth denied the plaintiff's motion for sanctions.
Then on Feb. 8, Cureton granted BNSF's motion for sanctions and spoliation against Carter and McBeth.
Cureton also ruled that Carter and McBeth must show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned, given that McBeth had filed what in hindsight appears to be a retaliatory motion for sanctions. The apparent retaliatory motion was based on Carter's false allegations of sexual harassment against Cawyer, Cureton said. Curton gave Carter and McBeth until March 7 to respond.
In a previously filed summary of the evidence, Carter argued that when BNSF's lawyer testified about the events of the deposition at the evidentiary hearing, he failed to establish, support or substantiate any allegations of spoliation or sanctionable conduct on her or McBeth's part.