UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 0:22-CV-62138-DIMITROULEAS/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

SYDNEY MARIE KEEFE, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

BRITT’S BOW WOW BOUTIQUE, INC.

and MERRI COLVARD, 

Defendants.

________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

This cause comes before the Court on Defendants Britt’s Bow Wow Boutique, Inc. and 

Merri Colvard’s Motion for Sanctions. DE 113. The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, Judge 

of District Court, referred the Motion for Sanctions to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for 

appropriate disposition or a Report and Recommendation. DE 116. Plaintiff Sydney Marie Keefe 

filed a Response to the Motion for Sanctions, and Defendants filed a Reply. DE 129; DE 134. 

The Court has carefully considered the parties’ briefing and the record and is otherwise fully 

advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is 

DENIED.

1

Plaintiff filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime pay. 

DE 1. The litigation has been acrimonious, to say the least. The case proceeded to a trial that 

Judge Dimitrouleas presided over, and at the end of the trial the jury awarded Plaintiff $52,000 in 

1 The Court has the authority to rule on the Motion for Sanctions by Order and need not issue a Report and 

Recommendation. E.g., Taverna Imps., Inc. v. A & M Wine & Spirits, Inc., No. 15-24198-CIV, 2018 WL 3611405, 

at *10 (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2018) (“Magistrate judges have jurisdiction to enter sanctions orders when the result does 

not strike claims, completely preclude defenses, or generate litigation-ending consequences.”).

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 1 of 5
2 

damages. DE 101. Judge Dimitrouleas doubled the jury’s award to account for liquidated damages 

and entered final judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $104,000. DE 105. The case is now in 

the midst of post-trial motion practice.

In one of those post-trial motions, the Motion for Sanctions, Defendants seek monetary 

sanctions from Plaintiff and her counsel for violating Judge Dimitrouleas’ Trial Order and for 

conduct immediately before and during the trial. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions raises three 

grounds for sanctions, which the Court addresses in turn. 

1. Failure to Complete a Pretrial Stipulation. 

Defendants first contend that the Court should impose sanctions because Plaintiff did not 

comply with the requirement in Judge Dimitrouleas’ Trial Order to cooperate with Defendants to 

have a Pretrial Stipulation filed by September 8. See DE 17 at 2-3 (setting a September 8 deadline 

for the parties to file a jointly prepared Pretrial Stipulation); see also Southern District of Florida 

Local Rule 16.1(e) (listing the required contents of a Pretrial Stipulation). Defendants explain that, 

instead of cooperating with them to file a Pretrial Stipulation by September 8, on September 7 

Plaintiff moved to extend the September 8 deadline. See DE 69. When Judge Dimitrouleas denied 

an extension, Plaintiff gave herself an extension and then filed a unilateral Pretrial Statement2 on 

September 21. See DE 74; DE 85. Meanwhile, Defendants did their best to comply with the Trial 

Order and filed a unilateral Pretrial Statement on September 8. See DE 71. 

The Court concludes that no sanctions are warranted for this violation of the Trial Order 

for the following reason. The Trial Order stated, “Counsel must meet at least one month prior to 

the beginning of the trial period to confer on the preparation of a Pretrial Stipulation in accordance 

with Local Rule 16.1E.” DE 17 at 3. The beginning of the trial period for this case was 

2 The Court refers to the unilateral filings as Pretrial Statements, whereas the requirement in the Trial Order and under 

the Local Rule is for the parties to jointly file a Pretrial Stipulation.

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 2 of 5
3 

September 25, so the meeting about the Pretrial Stipulation should have occurred by around 

August 25. Based on the record, the earliest there was communication about preparing a Pretrial 

Stipulation was through a September 5 email from Defendants’ counsel to Plaintiff’s counsel:

DE 70-1 at 3. Defendants do not assert that there was any communication about preparing a 

Pretrial Stipulation prior to this September 5 email. Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the email two 

days later by stating that Plaintiff would be moving for an extension of the September 8 deadline. 

Id.

The September 5 email was not a meeting as the Trial Order required. Further, the email 

was not sent at least one month before the beginning of the trial period. The first attempt to confer 

about a Pretrial Stipulation was merely three days before the Pretrial Stipulation was due. Both 

Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel violated the Trial Order with respect to the filing of a 

Pretrial Stipulation, and the Court finds it highly probable that both parties’ violations contributed 

to the lack of a timely Pretrial Stipulation. Thus, no sanctions are warranted. 

2. Untimely Disclosure of Exhibits. 

As Defendants’ second ground for sanctions, they argue that, when Plaintiff filed her 

Pretrial Statement late on September 21, she included a Trial Exhibit List that disclosed for the 

first time 131 exhibits totaling over 4,000 pages. See DE 85-1. Then Plaintiff amended the Trial 

Exhibit List on September 24 and added an additional exhibit totaling approximately 2,000 pages. 

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 3 of 5
4 

See DE 91-1. With trial beginning on September 26, Defendants’ counsel had a greatly curtailed 

period of time to review Plaintiff’s exhibits and to prepare for trial. 

However, Defendants do not contend that Plaintiff’s exhibits consisted of documents that 

were not either wholly or in part disclosed during discovery. By disclosing documents during 

discovery, Plaintiff put those documents at issue in the case, and Defendants should have been 

prepared for them to be exhibits at trial. In addition, a party’s exhibit list normally must be attached 

to the Pretrial Stipulation. See Southern District of Florida Local Rule 16.1(e)(9). Plaintiff, by 

filing her Pretrial Statement late, filed her Trial Exhibit List late. But as the Court has already 

discussed above, both parties contributed to the lack of a timely Pretrial Stipulation and, with it, 

the lack of a timely exchange of exhibit lists. For these reasons, no sanctions are warranted. 

3. Failure to Use the Late-Disclosed Exhibits. 

As Defendants’ third and final ground for sanctions, they assert that, despite disclosing 

132 exhibits just before trial, during trial Plaintiff sought to introduce only 4 exhibits. Defendants

state that their counsel wasted valuable time reviewing exhibits that Plaintiff never used, and they 

maintain that Plaintiff’s disclosure of 132 exhibits totaling approximately 6,000 pages was not in 

good faith and was meant to “hide the ball” and “ambush” them leading up to trial. 

Decisions about what evidence to admit are made in the moment during trial. It is not 

unusual for parties to list more exhibits out of caution than they ultimately end up admitting. The 

Court will not speculate as to Plaintiff’s or Plaintiff’s counsel’s motivation in listing exhibits. No 

sanctions are warranted.

Although the Court ultimately determines that an imposition of sanctions is not appropriate, 

the Court is aware that reasonable minds may disagree with this conclusion. Certainly, Judge 

Dimitrouleas—as the author of the violated Trial Order and as the presider at trial—may disagree. 

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 4 of 5
5

The Court notes that the same issues raised in the Motion for Sanctions (Plaintiff’s failure to file 

a timely Pretrial Stipulation and her late disclosure of exhibits, most of which she never used at 

trial) are pending before Judge Dimitrouleas as part of Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment 

as a Matter of Law and/or for New Trial or Remittitur. See DE 117 at 14-16.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [DE 113] is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 6th day of 

November, 2023.

 ___________________________________

 PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 0:22-cv-62138-WPD Document 138 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/06/2023 Page 5 of 5