Meggitt San Juan Capistrano Inc v. Nie Yongzhong et al

Filing 716

ORDER by Judge David O. Carter Re: Monetary Sanctions 480 . The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $91,749 in expenses caused by Defendants failures to comply with Court orders to be paid by the Defendants Nie Yongzhong and Xiamen Niell Electronics Co. to Plaintiffs Meggitt (Orange County) and Meggitt (Maryland) within 30 days of this Order. (See Order for additional information). (jtil)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12
13

Case No.: SACV 13-0239-DOC (DFMx)

14
15

MEGGITT (ORANGE COUNTY), INC.,

16

ET AL.,

17

ORDER RE: MONETARY
SANCTIONS [480]

Plaintiffs,

18
19

vs.

20
21

NIE YONGZHONG, ET AL.,
Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26

On April 21, 2015, the Court GRANTED IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanction (Dkt.
604). The Court wrote:

27

Monetary sanctions will be awarded for Defendants’ violations of Court

28

orders in the amount of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
-1-

1

seeking compliance with (1) the Court’s original order to produce Meggitt

2

documents, between September 2013 and June 2014, and (2) the Court’s

3

original order to produce technical documents regarding the CAYD053-50

4

product and the March order rejecting Defendants state secrets defense,

5

between March 2014 and March 2015.

6

In order to determine the appropriate amount of monetary sanctions, by

7

April 29, 2015, Plaintiffs should provide support for all expenses:

8
9

a) to bring the motions to compel with regards to Meggitt documents
prior to June 2014;

10

b) to meet and confer regarding production of these documents;

11

c) to bring the motions for sanctions; and

12

d) incurred in any other attempts to obtain Meggitt documents in

13

Defendants’ possession prior to June 2014 and the CAYD053-50

14

technical documents since Magistrate Judge McCormick’s March

15

21, 2014 ruling denying Defendants’ state secrets defense.

16

A hearing on this matter was held on May 4, 2015.

17

On April 29, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Submission of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

18

(“Submission”) (Sealed Dkt. 714). The Plaintiffs identified six “categories” of expenses that

19

they believed fell within the purview of the Court’s April 21 Order. Id. at 4-11. At the hearing,

20

Plaintiffs presented the Court with billing records supporting their Submission. The Court

21

reviewed the documents in camera. The same day, Defendants filed a declaration specifically

22

responding to each category of expenses. See Declaration of Daniel Johnson, Jr. re: Response in

23

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Submission (Sealed Dkt. 708).

24

Having reviewed the documents, and considering the arguments made by the parties, the

25

Court determines as follows with regards to each category of expenses identified by Plaintiffs

26

in their April 29 filing:

27
28

1. As to the first category of expenses, Meggitt’s Motions to Compel, All Supporting
Documents, and Efforts to Meet and Confer Regarding Same, the motions to compel
-2-

1

covered a variety of topics including topics covered by the sanctions order. The Court

2

finds that only approximately 5% of the expenses relate to the sanctioned conduct, in

3

proportion to the items addressed by those motions to compel. Therefore, the Court

4

awards $4,388 for “Category 1” expenses.

5

2. As to the second category of expenses, Defendants’ Motions for a Protective Order to

6

Block Discovery, All Supporting Documents, and Efforts to Meet and Confer Regarding

7

Same, the Court finds that these expenses do not relate to the sanctioned conduct

8

because the topics were related to the CAYD053-50 product and the costs and fees were

9

incurred before March 21, 2014.

10

3. As to the third category of expenses, Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order to

11

Preclude Discovery Re State Secrets and Subsequent Briefing, the Court finds that these

12

expenses do not relate to the sanctioned conduct because the topics were related to the

13

CAYD053-50 product and the costs and fees were incurred before March 21, 2014.

14

4. As to the fourth category of expenses, Terminating Sanctions Motion No. 1, All

15

Supporting Documents and Efforts to Meet and Confer Regarding Same, the Court finds

16

that an award of 18% of the expenses for bringing that motion (in proportion to the

17

topics addressed by the first sanctions motion) is appropriate. Therefore the Court

18

awards $18,207 with regards to the first motion for sanctions.

19

5. As to the fifth category of expenses, Terminating Sanctions Motion No. 2, All

20

Supporting Documents and Efforts to Meet and Confer Regarding Same, the Court finds

21

that an award of 29% of the expenses for bringing that motion (in proportion to the

22

topics addressed by the motion) is appropriate. Further, the Court finds that no

23

“discount” to the expenses sought is appropriate, as requested by the Defendants.

24

Therefore the Court awards $50,014 with regards to expenses related to the second

25

motion for sanctions.

26

6. As to the sixth category of expenses, Other Efforts to Obtain CAYD053-50 Technical

27

Documents and Meggitt Documents, in reviewing the billing records, the Court finds that

28

these expenses (predominately consisting of the rush translation of the CAYD053-50
-3-

1

documents) were incurred in relation to the sanctioned conduct because the topics were

2

related to the CAYD053-50 product and the costs and fees were incurred in the relevant

3

time period. Therefore the Court awards $19,140 for these additional expenses.

4

In total, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $91,749 in expenses caused by

5

Defendants’ failures to comply with Court orders to be paid by the Defendants Nie

6

Yongzhong and Xiamen Niell Electronics Co. to Plaintiffs Meggitt (Orange County) and

7

Meggitt (Maryland) within 30 days of this Order.

8
9

DATED: May 6, 2015

10
11

DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-