Category: Discovery Sanctions

Don’t Sue the Court Reporter


In Karageorge v. Urlacher, 18 C 3146 (ND IL) the plaintiff was engaged in state court litigation with the father of her child. She then filed a federal lawsuit against Urlacher, his lawyers and the court reporter. She alleged that the court reporter had altered a transcript. Karageorge was pro se, but the district court dismissed the case and granted the court reporter’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

It is completely understandable that the child custody proceedings were extremely upsetting to Karageorge. But even considering her pro se status, Karageorge’s distress in connection with those proceedings did not give her license to file a lawsuit making factually dubious and legally unsupportable allegations against a court reporter, forcing her to spend time and money fighting the suit. As the court explained in its dismissal order, Karageorge’s legal theories against Miyuskovich were clearly meritless, Doc. 49 at 2; in fact, Karageorge did not even bother to defend them. Karageorge’s factual allegations against Miyuskovich were neither tested nor debunked in discovery or at summary judgment or trial, but that is only because this case did not make it past the pleading stage. On their face, Karageorge’s factual allegations were extraordinarily farfetched, and given the chance to present supporting evidence in her response to Miyuskovich’s sanctions motion, Karageorge presented none, confirming that they were groundless. Under these circumstances, Rule 11 sanctions are warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)-(3); Bell v. Vacuforce, LLC, 908 F.3d 1075, 1080-81 (7th Cir. 2018) (affirming sanctions against a party that sought relief based on an “infirm factual foundation”) (internal quotation marks omitted);

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

District Court Awards Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence


The defendant in this lawsuit allowed a key item to be destroyed and sold for scrap – after it had notice that the item was relevant to discovery requests. The court ordered an award of attorney fees and costs and also permitted plaintiff an adverse inference instruction to be read to the jury.

This is a breach of contract case. TVI sued Harmony Enterprises and alleged that a baler manufactured by Harmony was defective. Defendant sold the baler for scrap.

It is undisputed that Defendant had control over the Mt. Vernon baler when it sold it for scrap, and Defendant does not dispute that the Mt. Vernon baler was relevant to this litigation. (See Dkt. No. 30 at 1, 7-9.) Defendant argues that it did not have an obligation to preserve the Mt. Vernon baler and could not have acted with a culpable state of mind because Plaintiff asked Defendant to dispose of it on October 3, 2017. (Dkt. No. 30 at 8-9; see Dkt. No. 20 at 8.) But Plaintiff’s initial request was followed by multiple indications that Defendant had a duty to preserve the Mt. Vernon baler, including Plaintiff’s October 10, 2017 letter reserving its right to pursue legal or equitable remedies related to the Mt. Vernon baler’s failure and Defendant’s own inspection of the Mt. Vernon baler that revealed unnecessary welds that contributed to its failure. (See id. at 2-4, 31-32; Dkt. No. 21 at 14-15, 25.) Further, Defendant shared a summary of its inspection with its counsel, who may have informed Defendant of the possibility of future litigation. (Dkt. No. 21 at 20-22.) All of this occurred while Defendant was still in possession of the Mt. Vernon baler. (See Dkt. No. 21 at 19.) Thus, Defendant was on notice of its obligation to preserve the Mt. Vernon baler, and consciously disregarded that obligation when it sold the Mt. Vernon baler for scrap. See Apple Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d. at 989, 998Surowiec, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1005.[2] The Court finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden of establishing that Defendant spoliated the Mt. Vernon baler….

Defendant had exclusive control over the Mt. Vernon baler, was on notice of the obligation to preserve it, and consciously disregarded its obligation by selling the baler for scrap. See supra. Plaintiff has been substantially prejudiced by Defendant’s destruction of the Mt. Vernon baler, as Plaintiff cannot conduct its own examination following Defendant’s disclosures about the reasons for the baler’s failure during discovery. See Apple Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d at 992.[3] Thus, the Court finds that an adverse jury instruction regarding Defendant’s spoliation of the Mt. Vernon baler is an appropriate sanction. The instruction shall inform the jury that Defendant was on notice that it had an obligation to preserve the Mt. Vernon baler, that Defendant destroyed the Mt. Vernon baler before Plaintiff could inspect it, that the Mt. Vernon baler was relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and that an inspection of the Mt. Vernon baler would have corroborated Plaintiff’s claim that it was defective.

Defendant then moved for reconsideration. That motion was denied. The explanation:

Defendant moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order, arguing that the Court committed manifest error in imposing its spoliation sanction and awarding Plaintiff attorney fees. (See generally Dkt. No. 42.) ….Defendant contends that the Court committed manifest error when it found that Plaintiff is entitled to an adverse jury instruction following Defendant’s spoliation of the Mt. Vernon baler. (Dkt. No. 42 at 10-13.) Defendant argues that the Court erred by looking only to Defendant’s conscious disregard of its discovery obligations to determine that Defendant’s degree of fault warranted an adverse jury instruction. (See id. at 10-12.) But the Court’s order looked beyond Defendant’s conscious disregard in finding that an adverse jury instruction was warranted. Specifically, the Court considered: Defendant’s exclusive control over the Mt. Vernon baler; Defendant’s substantial prior notice that it had an obligation to preserve the Mt. Vernon baler; and Defendant’s subsequent conscious disregard of that obligation when it sold the Mt. Vernon baler for scrap. (See Dkt. No. 39 at 2-3, 6.) Defendant’s remaining arguments opposing the Court’s evaluation of Defendant’s degree of fault simply restate those it raised in its response to Plaintiff’s original motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 42 at 11-12, with Dkt. No. 30 at 8-9.) Thus, Defendant has not identified a manifest error in the Court’s evaluation of Defendant’s degree of fault in spoliating the Mt. Vernon baler. See Premier Harvest, Case No. C17-0784-JCC, Dkt. No. 61 at 1; W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1).

The case is TVI, Inc. v. Harmony Enterprises, Inc. Case No. C18-1461-JCC. (D. W.D. Washington).

This case is instructive for any lawyer handling litigation involving an allegedly defective product. Preserve the product until both sides have had an opportunity to examine it. Failing to preserve the product risks a spoliation of evidence instruction to the jury and an award of fees and costs.

Lawyer Sanctioned by 8th Circuit For Forging Document


The case is SPV-LS, LLC v. TransAmerica Life, 912 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2018). The plaintiff estate sued TransAmerica and lost on summary judgment. The outcome of the case was not at issue in the sanctions motion. This case is from a year ago, but it is important and I am including it in this blog.

The discussion of the forgery of an engagement letter is below:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1) requires attorneys and pro se litigants to certify that every disclosure is “complete and correct at the time it was made” and that every discovery request, response, and objection is consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nonfrivolous, not submitted for an improper purpose, and not unreasonable or unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3) imposes “appropriate” sanctions on attorneys or parties who violate Rule 26(g)(1). Such sanctions may include monetary penalties, such as expenses and attorneys’ fees, Johnson Int’l Co. v. Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 431, 438 (8th Cir. 1994), and are particularly appropriate when an attorney submits a forged discovery document. See Perkins v. Gen. Motors Corp., 965 F.2d 597, 600 n.5 (8th Cir. 1992). Unlike § 1927 sanctions, these sanctions are nondiscretionary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3); Perkins, 965 F.2d at 600 n.5; see also Rojas v. Town of Cicero, 775 F.3d 906, 909 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Rule 26(g)(3) gives the judge discretion over the nature of the sanction but not whether to impose one.”); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1372 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The decision whether to impose sanctions under Rule 26(g)(3) is not discretionary.”).

SPV’s key evidence supporting Rule 26(g) sanctions is an allegedly-forged discovery document and the associated metadata produced by Attorney Kroll. SPV presents no evidence that Attorney Donahoe participated in this violation of Rule 26(g)(1). We therefore decline to find that the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 26(g) sanctions against Attorney Donahoe.

In response to a discovery request, Attorney Kroll provided SPV with a redacted copy of the retainer agreement between himself and the Estate’s personal representative. After filing a motion to compel production in a related proceeding against Attorney Kroll in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, SPV obtained an unredacted draft of the same retainer agreement. This draft showed Attorney Kroll would receive a contingency fee if either the Estate or the Trust prevailed in obtaining the death benefits payable under the Policy, supporting SPV’s theory that the Estate and Trust were controlled by the same parties in interest. When SPV produced the unredacted draft to the district court, the Estate claimed that draft was not a correct copy and produced its own unredacted copy of the retainer agreement. The Estate’s copy omitted the provision awarding Attorney Kroll a contingency fee if the Trust prevailed.

SPV requested Rule 26(g)(3) sanctions based on document metadata, taken directly 1114*1114 from Attorney Kroll’s computer by his e-discovery vendor. The metadata showed that the retainer agreement produced by the Estate, while purportedly signed by the Estate’s personal representative in August 2015, was not created until July 20, 2016—two days before Attorney Kroll produced the document to the court. Therefore, SPV argued, the document was forged. The district court acknowledged that fabricating discovery documents is grounds for sanctions, see SPV-LS, LLC v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. CIV 14-4092, 2017 WL 3668765, at *3 (Aug. 23, 2017), but it denied sanctions against Attorney Kroll. It did so under the mistaken belief that SPV relied on a document examiner’s report to prove forgery, stating that SPV should have produced that report. However, SPV never claimed that it relied on a document examiner’s report; in fact, it indicated that it never consulted a document examiner and relied solely on the document’s metadata. Because the district court based its denial of sanctions on SPV’s failure to introduce a nonexistent report into evidence, it clearly conducted an erroneous assessment of the evidence. See, e.g., MDU Res. Grp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 14 F.3d 1274, 1280 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding the district court clearly conducted an erroneous assessment of evidence when it misunderstood the purpose for which the evidence was offered). It therefore abused its discretion in denying Rule 26(g) sanctions against Attorney Kroll on this basis.

This is an unfortunate finding. The forgery was discovered because of the metadata that is present in every document.

If you have any questions about discovery obligations or your responsibilities as a lawyer, do not hesitate to contact me at ed@clintonlaw.net.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

8th Circuit Reverses Discovery Sanctions Dismissal


In Akins v. Southern Glazers Wine & Spirits of Arkansas, LLC, 18-1957, the 8th Circuit vacated a case dismissed for a violation of Rule 37. Akins filed a pro se employment case against his former employer. The Defendant noticed his deposition for two days. Akins appeared both days but left the deposition on at 5:00 p.m. on the second day to go to work. Defendant claimed that it had 15 more minutes of questioning. Defendant moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and the district court granted the motion.

The 8th Circuit reversed on the ground that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case. The 8th Circuit faulted the district court for failing to determine whether Akins acted in bad faith and whether a lesser sanction would suffice.

Rule 37 authorizes dismissal as a sanction if there is (1) an order compelling discovery, (2) willful violation of that order, and (3) prejudice. Before dismissing a case as a discovery sanction, the court must investigate whether less extreme sanctions would suffice, unless the failure was deliberate or in bad faith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Dismissals are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Comstock v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., 775 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir. 2014). Factual findings of willful or intentional failure to comply with a court order are reviewed for clear error. Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404 (8th Cir. 2008).
Akins did not violate the “fails to appear” discovery order, nor did he act in bad faith. He appeared for his deposition both days at the ordered time, and was deposed for nearly six hours over the two days. Both the discovery order and notice of deposition were silent about when the deposition would end. Akins had reason to believe the deposition would end at 5:00 because Southern’s counsel erroneously told him depositions must occur between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., and he requested that his deposition be scheduled between 2 and 5 p.m. each day. Southern did not identify the additional questions counsel would ask if the deposition continued past 5 p.m. so Southern did not demonstrate prejudice. This court concludes that the dismissal of Akins’s complaint was an abuse of discretion because his conduct did not violate the district court’s discovery order, and the court erred when it failed to consider sanctions less severe than dismissal with prejudice.

Comment: this case, while unpublished, is very unusual for two reasons. First, the district court appears to have acted abruptly in dismissing the case and not ordering Akins to sit for a further deposition. Second, I have never seen a dismissal where the Plaintiff did what he was supposed to do – he sat for his deposition on the days he was told to be there.

Ed Clinton, Jr.

http://www.clintonlaw.net

Defendant City Sanctioned For Failing to Designate Rule 30(b)(6) Witness


Wheat v. City of East Cleveland

This is a civil rights case filed by four men who were released from prison after serving ten years of their sentences. The men won a new trial based on what is described as exculpatory evidence. The plaintiffs served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on the Defendant City of East Cleveland.

Rule 30(b)(6) requires a party, such as a company or other organization, to designate a witness for the organization who can answer questions on topics that the other party provides in advance. The 30(b)(6) deposition can be a useful tool to resolve litigation in an efficient manner.  The party who offers the witness (or witnesses) must prepare the witness to testify. So, in a civil rights case against the City of East Cleveland, the City would be required to locate someone who had knowledge concerning the events in dispute. The City would also be required to prepare that witness to testify.

Here, the City of East Cleveland struggled to find a witness who could testify and the Plaintiffs moved for discovery sanctions under Rule 37. A short quotation from the opinion will suffice:

Both Magistrate Judge Baughman and this Court have ordered the City of East Cleveland to designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness who is competent to testify about the matters Plaintiffs requested. The City has failed to do so.

The Court recognizes that the events the City’s 30(b)(6) witness would testify about occurred almost two decades ago. In that time, memories fade, documents are lost or innocently destroyed, and relevant parties may leave the Court’s jurisdiction. If the City had shown that it undertook a diligent inquiry in an attempt to respond to Plaintiffs’ request, but the passage of time made their search impossible, the Court would see no reason for sanctions.

That is not what happened here. In response to Plaintiffs’ request that the City designate a 30(b)(6) witness, the City has attempted to designate three people. Initially, the City failed to designate anyone, purportedly because of the years between the events at issue in this case and the present litigation.[11]

Magistrate Judge Baughman then met with the parties and determined that the City had failed to perform a due diligent inquiry before failing to name a designee.[12] He ordered the City to perform its due diligence and to designate someone within thirty days of his order.[13]

Shortly after Judge Baughman’s order, the City attempted to designate the former Mayor of East Cleveland, Emmanuel Onunwor.[14] The City, however, has had zero contact with the former Mayor, and his location is currently unknown to the City.[15]

Then, the City designated Detective Patricia Lane, a named defendant who was, in counsel for the City’s words, “in a coma.”[16] This designation of someone so patently unavailable and unprepared to testify suggests that the City either willfully disobeyed Judge Baughman’s order, or, at best, negligently ignored his order to perform “due diligent inquiry.”

This Court then informed the City that neither Detective Lane nor Mayor Onunwor was a proper designation, and ordered the City to designate a witness who was competent to testify within thirty days.[17] The same day that this Court issued that order, the City designated former East Cleveland Law Director Helen Forbes Fields.[18] Ms. Forbes Fields is medically available to testify, and the City knows her location.[19]

The City, however, apparently never informed Ms. Forbes Fields that she would be the City’s designated witness. After Plaintiffs subpoenaed Ms. Forbes Fields and scheduled her deposition in consultation with the City, Ms. Forbes Fields called Plaintiffs’ attorneys. She told them that she (1) lacked any knowledge of the information Plaintiffs would depose her about, other than what she had previously stated in an affidavit, and (2) was unavailable at the time of her scheduled deposition.[20]

These facts make clear that the City never contacted Ms. Forbes Fields when scheduling her deposition with Plaintiffs, made no effort to prepare Ms. Forbes Fields, and seemingly did not contact her about serving as the designated witness. These lapses are especially troubling, because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) explicitly states that an organization must designate some person “who consent[s] to testify on its behalf.”[21]

The court, however, did not award any relief to the plaintiffs. Instead, the court gave the City of East Cleveland one week to identify a witness who could act as a 30(b)(6) representative. This opinion was especially entertaining because the City designated someone who is in a coma to testify and then designated another witness, but then failed to prepare the witness.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

The Clinton Law Firm, LLC

 

 

Discovery Abuses Merit A Default Judgment, Says New York District Court


In this case, the Magistrate and the District Judge found that the defendants’ refusal to participate in discovery amounted to intransigence and entered a default judgment against them.  The plaintiff were a union of bricklayers who sued a contruction firm. The opinion does not reveal what the case was about, but the plaintiffs needed the defendants’ records to determine whether or not they had claims. The court panned the conduct of the defendants and explained:

Over the course of a discovery period that was protracted unnecessarily because of Defendant’s intransigence, Defendant refused to make available the books and records needed to complete the audit required to assess Plaintiffs’ claims. As a result of Defendant’s obstruction, the March 2015 Opinion ordered Defendant to submit to an audit under the threat of being found in contempt and having sanctions imposed for failure to cooperate. (March 2015 Opinion.) After Defendant continued to defy clear and unambiguous court orders, the March 2016 Opinion granted Plaintiffs’ motion to hold Defendant in civil contempt of court and to impose sanctions for failing to comply with the directives of the March 2015 Opinion. (March 2016 Opinion.) Specifically, the Court ordered sanctions in the amount of $250.00 per day to be imposed on Defendant for each day after May 2, 2016, that Defendant failed to produce the requested records to Plaintiffs’ auditors. (March 2016 Opinion.)

After Defendant still failed to produce the records after May 2, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a motion for default judgement, which was done on August 24, 2016. (Mot. for Default J. (“Plaintiffs’ Motion” or “Pls. Mot.”), Dkt. Entry No. 36.) The next day, on August 25, 2016, the Court referred the motion to the magistrate judge for the preparation of a report and recommendation. While the motion was pending, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause why the sanctions ordered in the March 2016 Opinion should not be imposed. At the conclusion of the order to show cause hearing held on October 19, 2016, before this Court and Magistrate Judge Tiscione, the Court imposed sanctions of $250.00 per day from May 2, 2016 to October 19, 2016.

On January 12, 2017, the magistrate judge issued the thorough and well reasoned R&R, recommending that this Court find default judgment appropriate under both Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 55. (R&R.) With respect to Rule 37, the magistrate judge weighed the pertinent factors and found that sanctions were appropriate, inter alia, because of “the willfulness of Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery orders,” and the extent of its noncompliance. (R&R at 10-16.) The magistrate judge further held that, even if this were not a situation where Rule 37 sanctions were appropriate, Defendant had not met the “good cause” standard to defend against default judgment under Rule 55. (Id. at 16-20.) Ultimately, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court enter judgment awarding Plaintiffs $288,979.42, consisting of: (i) $130,386.48 in unpaid contributions; (ii) $79,121.47 in accrued interest as of the date of the R&R, plus $35.72 per day until the date judgment is entered; (iii) $79,121.47 in accrued interest as of the date of the R&R, plus $35.72 per day until the date judgment is entered, in lieu of liquidated damages; and (iv) $350 in costs and disbursements. (Id. at 27-28.) The magistrage judge further recommended that Plaintiffs not be awarded attorney’s fees. (Id. at 28

The District court entered judgment against the defendants and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.

Source: BRICKLAYERS INSURANCE AND WELFARE FUND v. PPL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORP., Dist. Court, ED New York 2017 – Google Scholar

California District Court Dismisses Lawsuit As A Sanction For Repeated Discovery Violations


This case is unusual because the court dismissed a lawsuit with prejudice and revoked the pro hac vice admission of plaintiff’s counsel. Dismissal is the most extreme sanction, of course, but the Court provides a detailed discussion of the reasons for the dismissal.

The case appears to be a trade secrets/unfair competition case. The court summarized the lack of cooperation among the parties:

From the beginning, this case has been marked by a level of dysfunction and inability to work together that is unprecedented in the Court’s experience. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 96 & 98 (parties filed separate case management statements in contravention of Local Rule 16-9); Dkt. No. 101 (inability to conduct Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer); Dkt. No. 157 at 47-57 (Plaintiff’s counsel blocked emails from Defendants, choosing to accept only faxes, letters, and phone calls from opposing counsel, because receiving emails from Defendants was too “intrusive”); Dkt. No. 288 (Defendants requested a discovery referee because Plaintiff allegedly “refuses to discuss any items beyond Loop’s own agenda” during meet-and-confer meetings). Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu attempted to “impose a workable structure on the parties’ discovery dispute resolution process,” Dkt. No. 271 at 2, and the docket highlights the Court’s many, many attempts to advance this litigation in a productive way.[1] Over the course of the last two years, the Court has tried numerous approaches, such as ordering court-supervised discovery management conferences, Dkt. No. 136 at 2; ordering the parties to audio record meet and confer sessions, Dkt. No. 156 at 2; instituting standing meetings each week to encourage substantive and meaningful meet-and-confer sessions, Dkt. No. 271 at 2; and eventually requiring the parties to provide dial-in information and agendas for the weekly meet-and-confer teleconferences, so that the Court could monitor the parties’ conduct by joining the calls, Dkt. No. 415 at 2.

As described more fully below, Plaintiff’s insubordination, through its counsel Valeria C. Healy, was and continues to be particularly egregious, posing a significant obstacle to the progress of this case. The Court has given Plaintiff many chances to litigate in a professional and productive manner, and has been consistently confronted with counsel’s utter disregard for the Court’s authority and her persistent refusal to comply with the Court’s orders and the Federal Rules. The following section details the key discovery orders serving as the basis of this order.

The court listed many issues, including the refusal to produce documents and the refusal to answer interrogatories. However, the deposition misconduct is unusual and worth quoting at some length.

Witness coaching happens all the time in depositions. It is rare for a court to find that the lawyer exceeded the bounds of permissible conduct.

As early as December 2015, Judge Ryu gave specific warnings with respect to the issue of privilege during depositions: “there can be no instructions to not answer except for privilege. . . . And it has to be clearly privilege. Because if it’s not, again there will be sanctions.” Dkt. No. 335 at 46.

On January 25, 2016, Almawave first deposed Plaintiff’s co-founder and CEO Gianmauro Calafiore. Dkt. No. 884 at 1 (“Order 884”). After reviewing the deposition transcript, Judge Ryu issued an order regarding Healy’s conduct during the deposition. Dkt. No. 436 (“Order 436”).

[The deposition transcript] is replete with examples of inappropriate behavior by Plaintiff’s counsel, Valeria Calafiore Healy. Ms. Healy made speaking objections, instructed the deponent not to answer questions for reasons other than the invocation of privilege, and repeatedly objected without stating a basis for the objection. The deponent, Gianmauro Calafiore, was often argumentative and uncooperative in providing testimony, thereby delaying the deposition process. Ms. Healy and Mr. Calafiore’s obstructionist conduct repeatedly stymied Alma[w]ave USA’s attempts to obtain discovery through this key deposition.Id. at 1. Judge Ryu sanctioned the Plaintiff, ordering five additional hours of deposition and requiring Plaintiff to bear the cost. Id. The order again provided specific instructions:

In the future, Ms. Healy, and indeed, all attorneys defending depositions in this litigation (1) shall state the basis for an objection, and no more (e.g., “relevance,” “compound,” “asked and answered”); (2) shall not engage in speaking objections or otherwise attempt to coach deponents; and (3) shall not direct a deponent to refuse to answer a question unless the question seeks privileged information.Id. at 2. Judge Ryu further warned that “[g]iven Ms. Healy’s repeated inappropriate conduct in her defense of the Calafiore deposition, any further breach” would result in sanctions. Id.

On August 25, 2016, Judge Ryu issued an order regarding Healy’s continued conduct during the deposition of Calafiore, as well as Loop AI’s other executives Bart Peintner and Patrick Ehlen. Dkt. No. 884. Leading up to this order, Judge Ryu had already twice directed Plaintiff to produce Peintner and Ehlen for depositions as they “appeared to be percipient witnesses.” See Dkt. No. 465 (March 10, 2016); Dkt. No. 526 (March 25, 2016). Judge Ryu’s March 25 order included specific dates, ordering that Ehlen and Peintner appear on March 29 and March 30, and that Calafiore and any of Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) witnesses appear either on March 31 or April 1. Dkt. No. 526. This Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from Judge Ryu’s nondispositive order regarding the deposition dates. Dkt. No. 533. Plaintiff nonetheless failed to follow Judge Ryu’s orders. See Dkt. No. 555 (Almawave’s letter brief indicating that “Loop and its witnesses refused to appear for deposition as ordered”). On April 4, 2016, Judge Ryu again ordered Plaintiff to make witnesses Calafiore, Ehlen, and Plaintiff’s corporate representative available. Dkt. No. 564.

Order 884 is based on Judge Ryu’s review of the deposition transcripts of these witnesses. Judge Ryu found that “[i]n direct contravention of the court’s February 29, 2016 order, Healy instructed witnesses to refuse to answer questions on grounds other than privilege.” Order 884 at 4 (noting, for example, that Healy “instructed Plaintiff’s 30(b)(6) designee (Calafiore) not to answer certain questions, unilaterally deciding that the questions were outside the scope of the noticed Rule 30(b)(6) topics”); id. at 5 (“[W]hen Almawave asked Ehlen, `Can you tell us how your particular algorithms work?’, Healy instructed him not to answer on the basis of relevance, again unilaterally taking the topic off the table.”). Judge Ryu cited Healy’s “numerous improper speaking objections, in direct contravention of this court’s order that counsel confine objections to a statement of their basis, (e.g., `compound,’ or `asked and answered’), and not engage in speaking objections or otherwise attempt to coach the witness.” Id. at 5. Order 884 found “Healy’s coaching was so effective that the witnesses occasionally repeated her objections, sometimes verbatim, to the examining attorney,” and that “[o]n other occasions, Healy actually attempted to answer the question for the witness.” Id. at 6-7.Order 884 held that Healy improperly asserted attorney-client privilege to prevent witnesses from answering, noting that Healy “inexplicably refused to allow the witnesses to respond to questions about their own discussions with other Loop employees or third parties,” and “refused to allow Plaintiff’s witnesses to answer questions about their document collection and production in this litigation” on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Id. at 7-8. Judge Ryu concluded that Healy’s conduct, “including instructions not to answer questions and speaking objections and coaching, was both improper and in direct violation of the court’s February 29, 2016 order regarding the conduct of depositions” and “[a]ccordingly, it is sanctionable.” Id. at 9. Judge Ryu deferred to this Court as to what sanction should be imposed. Id.

In sum, this case will draw coverage in the media and in legal publications which discuss discovery shenanigans.

Source: LOOP AI LABS INC. v. Gatti, Dist. Court, ND California 2017 – Google Scholar