Watson v. Crossroads Hospice of St. Louis, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DANA WATSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:24-cv-646-SEP
)
CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF ST. LOUIS, 	)
LLC, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Dana Watson’s Motion to Compel With Request for
Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Doc. [88], Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, Doc. [95],
Motion for Hearing, Doc. [99], and Amended Motion for Hearing, Doc. [100]. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion to seal is granted as to Docs. [94] and [94-1] but denied as to Doc.
[88], and all other motions are denied. While the Court does not at this time award Defendant its
costs associated with responding to Plaintiff’s motions, Plaintiff is on notice that continued
harassment of opposing counsel and filing frivolous motions will result in such an award, and
that failure to follow this Court’s orders could result in dismissal of this case.
FACTS AND B ACKGROUND
On May 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Crossroads Hospice of St.
Louis, alleging employment discrimination on the bases of race and disability. Doc. [1]. On
January 14, 2025, Plaintiff amended her complaint. Doc. [30]. Plaintiff alleges employment
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 US.C. §§ 701, et seq.; Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and Title VII of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also asserts claims for wrongful termination and
retaliation. Defendant denies that Plaintiff notified it of any disability or made any
accommodation request and that Plaintiff was terminated for her race or for reporting
discrimination. Defendant alleges instead that Plaintiff was terminated for misconduct, including
violating company confidentiality policy. Doc. [32] ¶ 12; Doc. [92] at 6.
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
The Court has held three discovery conferences upon request of the parties. On June 17,
2025, the Court held its first discovery conference to address a dispute regarding Plaintiff’s
discovery responses. Docs. [61], [70]. On August 18, 2025, the Court held a discovery
conference and discussed appropriate parameters for production following disagreement about
Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s second request for production of documents. During the
conference, counsel for Defendant recounted her extensive efforts to acquire and produce
documents and information in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and spoliation
accusations. Doc. [92] at 23-24. For example, Plaintiff accused Defendant of wrongfully
withholding and destroying investigative reports relating to what Plaintiff characterized as
racism allegations lodged against Crossroads Assistant Clinical Director Susan Harwell. Id.
Defense counsel responded that she had interviewed the company’s prior executive director and
searched the email inboxes of Ms. Harwell and Ms. Watson and a corporate compliance email
address, but she had found nothing of that nature regarding Ms. Harwell. Id. at 28-30.
The Court did find that the some of the information requested by Plaintiff was relevant
and proportional to her claims and thus ordered Defendant to produce supplemental discovery to
Plaintiff by September 12th , expanding its production to include records of employees fired by
Defendant from the Chesterfield location during the relevant period for any reason, not just for
cause. Docs. [90] at 43, 49; [79] at 1. The minute entry for that conference states “[a]ny motion
to compel or for a protective order shall be filed no later than September 12th.” Doc. [76].
Defendant moved to extend that deadline and the deadline for completing supplemental
discovery to September 26, 2025, which the Court granted. Docs. [77], [78]. A week later,
Defendant moved to amend the Case Management Order and extend all deadlines by a month so
it could meet its discovery obligations, which Plaintiff opposed. Docs. [79], [80].
On September 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for a hearing to resolve a discovery
dispute, alleging that Defendant failed to provide deposition dates. Doc. [80]. With her motion,
Plaintiff submitted a record of emails between the parties in which her own communications to
opposing counsel were unreasonable and uncooperative. For example, Plaintiff originally agreed
to an October deposition, stating on September 2nd that she was free all of October. Doc. [80-1]
at 6. A week later, she reversed course and unilaterally attempted to set a September 18th
deposition, giving defense counsel less than 90 minutes to respond to her email with alternative
dates, sending ten consecutive emails over the course of two days, and emailing Defendant her
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
grievances in all capital letters. Id. at 3-10. Defense counsel informed Plaintiff that her
proposed date was not workable because the deponent had a surgery scheduled that day. Id. at 3.
On September 16, 2025, the Court held another discovery conference, during which it
granted Defendant’s Motion to Amend Case Management Order, Doc. [79], for good cause
shown and denied Plaintiff’s request to compel adherence with her proposed deposition
schedule. See Doc. [84]. During the conference, the Court warned Plaintiff that her conduct
arguably amounted to harassment and continuing her course of conduct could lead to sanctions.
Doc. [91] at 4. The Court further alerted Plaintiff that “this discussion that you attached
manifests totally inappropriate behavior in the context of this litigation” and warned Plaintiff that
she was wasting time on matters that were not important to her case. Id. at 3, 8.
Under the amended schedule, Defendant timely produced supplemental responses to
Plaintiff’s Second Requests for Production of Documents on September 23, 2025. Doc. [93] at
1. That same day, Plaintiff sent six emails and left a voicemail for defense counsel regarding her
issues with the production, requesting a phone call by 10:30 a.m. the next morning. See Docs.
[93], [93-1]. Defense counsel attests that she and Plaintiff had a call before 10:00 a.m. the next
morning. Doc. [93-2]. On September 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a sealed Motion to Compel with
Request for Sanctions for Spoliation, Doc. [88]. Two weeks later, Defendant filed its opposition.
Doc. [93]. In her motion, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to preserve and produce notes,
witness statements, and other evidence relating to investigations that Defendant either did or
should have conducted for certain allegations of discrimination relating to Defendant’s prior
employees, including Plaintiff. Doc. [88]. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel production of such
documents, or alternatively, seeks a variety of sanctions against Defendant for its alleged
spoliation of the evidence, including adverse jury instructions. Id.
Defendant responds that any non-privileged responsive documents have already been
produced to Plaintiff following time-consuming and expensive searches. Doc. [93]. For
example, Defendant recounts its extensive search for discrimination complaints that Plaintiff
alleges it has wrongfully withheld regarding Susan Harwell. Id. at 4-7. Defendant’s efforts to
locate the allegedly missing information includes searching Plaintiff’s inbox and outbox for her
entire period of employment (February through March 2022) and four months thereafter,
reviewing the corporate compliance email and hotline number from January 1, 2022, through
October 3, 2023, and searching the inboxes and outboxes of Ms. Harwell and Crossroads
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Executive Director Colleen Dietmeyer for relevant terms such as “discrimination,” “race,”
“Dana,” “Watson,” “Susan,” “Harwell,” and “complaint.” Id. at 5-6. Defendant reports that it
has reviewed over 20,000 electronic documents for this case. Id. at 6. Further, Defendant
interviewed Ms. Dietmeyer, though she is no longer employed by Defendant, in its attempt to
identify the allegedly missing evidence. Id. Ms. Dietmeyer stated that she “did not recall Ms.
Harwell ever complaining about being discriminated against” nor ever seeing any of the
allegedly missing evidence. Id. In Defendant’s telling, “[n]o evidence was “lost” or
“destroyed”—it simply does not exist as Plaintiff wishes, and Plaintiff refuses to accept that.”
Id. at 7-8. Defendant further alleges that it “has informed [Plaintiff] several times that no non-
privileged documents related to her termination or post-termination complaints are being
withheld,” and “[d]efense counsel informed Plaintiff on numerous occasions that it cannot
produce documents that never existed.” Id. at 7-8. Defendant requests an award of its attorneys’
fees and costs associated with responding to Plaintiff’s motion. Id. at 8.
On October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to file her motion to compel and
her reply in further support thereof, Docs. [88] and [94], under seal. See Doc. [95].
L EGAL S TANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) provides remedies for failures to preserve
electronically stored information. “If electronically stored information that should have been
preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take
reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional
discovery,” the Court may award various sanctions if it finds that the failure to preserve
(1) prejudices one party or (2) that a party acted intentionally to deprive the other of the
information, the Court may award various sanctions. FED. R. C IV. P. 37(e)(1), (2). If a motion to
compel is denied, the Court “must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant,
the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its
reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney’s fees.” FED. R. C IV.
P. (a)(5)(B). But the Court “must not order this payment if the motion was substantially justified
or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id.
Spoliation is the intentional destruction or significant alteration of evidence. Pisoni v.
Steak ‘N Shake Ops., Inc., 468 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (citing State ex rel. Zobel v.
Burrell, 167 S.W.3d 688, 691 (Mo. banc 2005). “Sanctions for spoliation of evidence require ‘a
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
finding of intentional destruction indicating a desire to suppress the truth.’” Mehner v. Furniture
Design Studios, Inc., 143 F.4th 941, 954 (8th Cir. 2025) (quoting Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Wade,
485 F.3d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 2007)). Mere negligent destruction of evidence does not
constitute spoliation; the destruction must be intentional. Pisoni, 468 S.W.3d at 926 (citing
Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522, 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). The moving party
bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of the spoliator’s fraudulent intent.
DeGraffenreid v. R.L. Hannah Trucking Co., 80 S.W.3d 866, 873 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002),
overruled on other grounds by Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. 2003)
If a plaintiff fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order,
the Court may dismiss the action, either sua sponte or on a defendant’s motion. FED. R. C IV. P.
41(b); see, e.g., Good Stewardship Christian Ctr. v. Empire Bank, 341 F.3d 794, 797-98 (8th Cir.
2003) (dismissal with prejudice warranted when plaintiff caused delay and obstructed progress of
discovery, including by making baseless motions for sanctions against opposing counsel); Hunt
v. City of Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527-28 (8th Cir. 2000) (dismissal with prejudice warranted
when litigant violated court’s orders and Federal Rules); see also Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (federal courts have inherent power to dismiss action for failure to
prosecute).
Further, courts can award sanctions against pro se litigants. “If a pro se litigant ignores a
discovery order, he is and should be subject to sanctions like any other litigant. Courts can
assess costs and monetary sanctions against IFP litigants.” See Harris v. Forsyth, 742 F.2d 1277
(11th Cir. 1984) (“a court has discretion to award costs against indigents ‘as in other cases’”);
Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986) (imposition of $1,000 fine on inmate
litigant not presumptively objectionable); Bonaventure v. Butler, 593 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1979);
see also Stern v. Inter–Mountain Telephone Co., 226 F.2d 409 (6th Cir. 1955) (dismissal for
failure to pay costs is justified where court makes clear that payment is a condition for avoiding
dismissal). “While dismissal is an extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order,
especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon
v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (citing State Exch. Bank v. Hartline, 693 F.2d
1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982); Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1169 n.8 (5th
Cir. 1980)).
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff evidently takes issue with how Defendant conducted its internal investigations.
She alleges that she “wasn’t interviewed by [] Crossroads at all, which would’ve been a critical
step in the investigation [for her termination], which should’ve been preserved.” Doc. [94] at 11.
She also complains that “there were no actual interview notes, or investigation notes, to
document the actual investigation taken place, only a summary of the investigation . . . .” Id.
And she faults Defendant for producing only one witness statement even though there were five
employees who witnessed the events that preceded her termination, calling the omission “a
significant investigative flaw that weakens their credibility.” Doc. [94] at 10; see also Doc. [94]
at 7, 9 (“A second failed investigation”); (“This is now the second event of no investigation
happening after employees report discrimination.”). Whatever effect an insufficient
investigation may have on a party’s credibility, it does not amount to spoliation. If certain
evidence never existed, Defendant is not at fault for not producing it. Defendant has gone to
significant lengths to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, including a
number of contemporaneous reports of other employees about incidents involving Plaintiff. See,
e.g., Doc. [90] at 20, 27, 35. There is no evidence that Defendant has even withheld, much less
destroyed, anything. Defendant has repeatedly informed Plaintiff that certain information she
wants does not exist and has never existed. Doc. [93] at 8.
The Court agrees with Defendant that it cannot be compelled to produce that which does
not exist. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, including the request for sanctions, is denied. Although
Plaintiff’s motion was unjustified, the Court declines at this time to award Defendant its
requested costs in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status. If Plaintiff persists with harassing
communications and frivolous motion practice, she is on notice that she will be required to
compensate Defendant for the costs associated with litigating any such issue in the future.
Plaintiff is also reminded that the Case Management Order and Eastern District of Missouri
Local Rules require her to make a good faith attempt to resolve any discovery dispute before
filing a motion to compel. See Doc. [85]. The CMO states “[p]ursuant to L.R. 37- 3/04, no
motion to compel will be considered unless the parties have first attempted to resolve the dispute
without Court intervention.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s email to defense counsel prior to filing her
motion stated, “I will give you a call around 915am, or I can be available up until 1030am prior
to filing my Motion to Compel . . . and if you just don’t have the information I will have to
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
request Sanctions[.]” Doc. [93-1] at 1 (emphasis added). That email suggests that Plaintiff had
already decided to file a motion to compel prior to conferring with Defendants, and that the
purpose of the call was not to confer in good faith. If true, that would be a violation of the CMO
and the Local Rules. Plaintiff should bear in mind that the Court has discretion to dismiss this
action with prejudice if it finds she has willfully disobeyed a court order or intentionally engaged
in a pattern of delay. See, e.g., Good Stewardship Christian Ctr., 341 F.3d at 797-98 (citing
baseless sanctions motions among other misconduct).
MOTION FOR S EALING
There is a “common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709
F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013). When evaluating motions to seal, the “court must first decide if
the documents in question are ‘judicial records,’ and if so, must next consider whether the party
seeking to prevent disclosure has overcome the common-law right of access.” Flynt v.
Lombardi, 885 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1222-23). “The
presumption of public access to judicial records may be overcome if the party seeking to keep
the records under seal provides compelling reasons for doing so.” Flynt, 885 F.3d at 511 (citing
In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006)). “[T]he weight to be given the presumption of
access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial
power and [the] resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” IDT
Corp., 709 F.3d at 1224 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)).
Plaintiff moves to file Docs. [94] and [88] under seal. Doc. [94] is Plaintiff’s Reply to
Defendant’s Opposition to her Motion to Compel. In it, Plaintiff recites details about internal
disciplinary investigations and reports for other Crossroads employees. Attached as Doc. [94-1],
Plaintiff includes discovery materials designated as confidential—emails and reports of
disciplinary investigations, coaching sessions, and treatment records involving other Crossroads
employees. The privacy of Crossroads employees who are uninvolved in this lawsuit and their
interest in avoiding the embarrassment and negative career impacts associated with publicizing
their employee disciplinary records outweigh the public’s interest in viewing those particular
records. Docs. [94] and [94-1] may therefore remain under seal. Plaintiff has filed redacted
versions of Docs. [94] and [94-1], as required by Eastern District of Missouri Local Rule
13.05(A)(4)(c)(i). See Doc. [98].
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel with Request for Sanctions for Spoliation, Doc. [88],
contains no confidential material. The motion contains only boilerplate recitations of legal
standards alongside conclusory statements regarding allegedly lost evidence. Because the
public’s interest in access to the Court record outweighs any interest in its confidentiality, Doc.
[88] will be unsealed. Plaintiff also filed under seal her Memorandum in Support of her Motion
for Leave to File under Seal, Doc. [96]. That document similarly contains only boilerplate
recitations of legal standards and is thus ordered unsealed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel With Request for
Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence, Doc. [88], is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, Doc. [95] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to Docs. [94] and [94-
1] but denied as to Doc. [88].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing and Amended Motion
for Hearing, Docs. [99] and [100], are DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:24-cv-00646-SEP Doc. #: 113 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>