“Defendant's bonus payments constitute ‘renumeration' under FLSA, and, therefore, must be included in calculating an employee's regular rate of pay.” Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless United States (“Hornady II”), 2022 WL 495186 at * 9 (February 17, 2022) (citing Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless United States (“Hornady I”), 572 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1182-1183 (S.D. Ala. November 18, 2021) (citing 29 C.F.R. 778.209(a)). The FLSA defines ‘regular rate of pay' to include ‘all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,' excluding certain types of compensation provided in 29 U.S.C. § 207(e).”
Default judgments entered as a sanction for violating a court order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are distinct from those issued under Rule 55. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P., Rules and Comment. Rule 55. While Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) “empowers the Court to impose ‘just' sanctions against a party that violates a discovery order,” Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, 572 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1187 (S.D. Ala. 2021), a Rule 37 default-judgment sanction “requires a willful or bad faith failure to obey a discovery order” and “is appropriate only as a last resort, when less drastic sanctions would not ensure compliance with the court's orders,” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993).
After entry of the Court's standard FLSA scheduling order, however, the parties proposed a different order with discovery requirements directed to Defendant and more narrowly tailored to Plaintiffs' claims." Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, 572 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1190 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 18, 2021).
Nor does Universal argue that HMA has acted in bad faith by practicing fraud upon the Court. See Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, 572 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1186 (“Bad faith exists when the court finds that a fraud has been practiced upon it, or that the very temple of justice has been defiled, or where a party or attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument.” (quotations omitted)).
In addition to the Court's authority to issue sanctions for discovery violations under Rule 37(c), "[t]he Court . . . has inherent power to police litigant misconduct and impose sanctions on those who abuse the judicial process." Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 239 F.R.D. 81, 84 (D.N.J. 2006); see also Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, 572 F. Supp. 3d 1162, 1185 (S.D. Ala. 2021)("While Rule 37 governs sanctions for discovery-related misconduct only, a court may exercise its inherent sanctioning power to punish all types of contumacious conduct."), reconsideration denied, No. 18-00317, 2022 WL 5052293 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 4, 2022).
A pattern of disregard for the discovery process and timely disclosure of evidence is also indicative of bad faith. See Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, 572 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1194 (S.D. Ala. 2021).
After entry of the Court's standard FLSA scheduling order, however, the parties proposed a different order with discovery requirements directed to Defendant and more narrowly tailored to Plaintiffs' claims." Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, 572 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1190 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 18, 2021).