In Moore v. CITGO Refining and Chemicals Co., 735 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2013) (Nos. 12-41175, 12-41292), plaintiffs, supervisors at a CITGO refinery, alleged that CITGO violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying them as exempt from overtime. The district court dismissed the claims of most of the plaintiffs as a discovery sanction, finding that they had failed to comply with two separate court orders requiring them to preserve and produce certain discovery. CITGO then submitted a bill of costs under FRCP 54(d). The court found that CITGO was entitled to costs, but awarded CITGO only approximately 10% of what it requested, based in part on a finding that CITGO had “enormous wealth” and the plaintiffs had “limited resources.” On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing such sanctions. The appellate court did, however, reverse the costs award, ruling that the district court erred by basing the award on the disparity in financial resources between the parties. The court held that the relative wealth of the parties was not a proper ground for denying or limiting costs to the prevailing party under Rule 54, and to hold otherwise would undermine the foundation of the legal system that justice is administered to all equally, regardless of wealth or status. In particular, the court stated that the approach adopted by the district court was impermissibly punitive, as it would prevent profitable corporations from recovering costs whenever litigating against individuals in good faith. Consequently, the appellate court ordered plaintiffs to pay the full amount of costs sought by CITGO.