Welenco, Inc. v. Corbell, et al.,

Filing 121

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/12/15 RECOMMENDING that the 100 Motion for Sanctions be granted in part and that evidentiary sanctions be imposed on plaintiffs precluding plaintiffs from introducing i nto evidence, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment or at trial, any documents that were not produced by plaintiffs prior to 2/14/15 and any testimony evidence from witnesses John Duffield, Daniel Guardino, Tyler McMillan, or any person designated to testify onbehalf of the corporate plaintiffs Welenco and Water Well. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WELENCO, INC., et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-0287 KJM CKD PS

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GARY CORBELL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Defendants’ motion for sanctions and joinder therein came on regularly for hearing on

17
18

March 11, 2015. Thomas Cregger appeared for plaintiffs. Richard Zimmer and Joseph Warner

19

appeared telephonically for defendant Gary Corbell. Thomas McCartney appeared for defendants

20

Craig Corbell and Boredata, Inc. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon

21

hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS

22

FOLLOWS:
In this action, plaintiff alleges claims for computer fraud, copyright infringement,

23
24

misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of an employment agreement, and breach of a stock

25

purchase agreement. Plaintiff Water Well Technology, Inc. acquired the stock of plaintiff

26

Welenco, Inc. from defendant Gary Corbell in 2007. Following the sale, defendant Craig

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Corbell1 continued working for Welenco. In 2012, defendant Craig Corbell left that employment

2

and started defendant Boredata, Inc. The gravamen of the complaint is that Craig Corbell unfairly

3

competed with Welenco and that Gary Corbell was involved in the wrongful conduct.2
By order dated February 6, 2015 (ECF No. 99), this court granted defendants’ motions to

4
5

compel and ordered plaintiffs to produce responsive documents and to provide complete

6

responses to interrogatories no later than February 13, 2015.3 Plaintiffs were cautioned in that

7

order that failure to comply might result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary

8

sanctions and/or a recommendation that terminating sanctions issue. Plaintiffs failed to comply

9

with the court’s order by the designated date. Defendants thereafter filed the pending motion for

10

sanctions. Defendants seek dismissal of the action for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the

11

court’s discovery order.

12

In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submit the declarations of Daniel Guardino, an

13

associate of the plaintiff corporations, and Robert Guardino, President and CEO of the plaintiff

14

corporations. Plaintiffs contend they did not understand that terminating sanctions would issue if

15

they did not comply with the court’s order, yet they concede they were sent an email from their

16

counsel on February 6, 2015 advising them that further discovery responses were due the next

17

week and that the email from their counsel attached a copy of the order. The lacunae in the

18

opposition affidavits are as vast and deep as the craters of the moon. The affidavits are notable

19

for not what they aver but for what they do not, and are disingenuous at best. For instance, the

20

declaration of Robert Guardino states that he sent documents to his attorney, Glenn Peterson,

21

prior to January 21, 2015 but neither states when the documents were sent, nor provides a

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Craig Corbell is Gary Corbell’s son.

2

A motion to dismiss has been granted in the instant action dismissing the breach of contract and
declaratory relief causes of action. Parallel to this litigation have been state court proceedings
wherein Gary Corbell sued to collect the amount owed on the promissory note. Trial began in
that action in December 2014. Judgment was entered in the state court action in the amount of
$444,202.15 in favor of Gary Corbell.
3

Under the amended scheduling order, February 13, 2015 was the last day to complete discovery.
ECF No. 83.
2

1

description of the documents. The affidavits also appear to be in direct contradiction to the

2

affidavit of their prior counsel, who on the motion to withdraw as counsel, described the total lack

3

of cooperation by his clients regarding producing documents essential to prosecution of their

4

claims. Declaration of Glenn Peterson, ECF No. 102-2 at 4:1-3 (“[p]laintiff’s repeated failures to

5

make discovery in this case has severely undermined the tenability of all claims alleged in the

6

operative complaint”); 4:7-10 (as of February 18, 2015, plaintiff’s counsel had “yet to receive any

7

information with which to supplement Plaintiff’s discovery responses as ordered. This is despite

8

the fact that Plaintiffs apparently have the assistance of a paralegal in Southern California, who

9

has been involved during the past 3 weeks.”); 6:9-11 (“Plaintiffs are either unwilling or unable to

10

cooperate with [counsel] and meet the minimum requirements of a plaintiff in a civil case, such as

11

making appropriate discovery . . .”).

12

Document requests were served by defendant Craig Corbell on September 18, 2014.

13

Document requests were served by defendant Boredata on November 14, 2014. Further

14

document requests were served on January 9 and February 9, 2015. Despite responses to

15

defendants’ requests for production of documents which stated that responsive documents would

16

be produced, the only documents which have thus far been produced by plaintiffs consist of

17

documents attached to the first amended complaint as exhibits, documents uploaded by defendant

18

Craig Corbell to DropBox (a matter not in dispute) and copies of the original Rule 26 disclosures.

19

To date, and even in the face of the motion for terminating sanctions, no further documents have

20

been produced. Moreover, plaintiffs unilaterally cancelled the depositions of key witnesses to

21

their claims (including witnesses who were designated to testify on behalf of the plaintiff

22

corporations);4 only the deposition of Robert Guardino was partially completed.

23

In light of the history of this litigation as set forth above, it is readily apparent that

24

plaintiffs have thwarted discovery at every turn. There is no dispute that plaintiffs have failed to

25

comply with the court’s order requiring plaintiffs to produce responsive documents and provide

26

/////

27
28

4

The witnesses were John Duffield, Daniel Guardino, Tyler McMillan, and persons designated
to testify on behalf of the corporate plaintiffs Welenco and Water Well.
3

1

complete responses to the interrogatories. The court turns, therefore, to the issue of the

2

appropriate sanction.

3

Defendants seek the drastic sanction of dismissal. Terminating sanctions may issue only

4

upon a finding of willful disobedience or bad faith. In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th

5

Cir. 1996). Given the utter lack of response to discovery requests even in the face of the pending

6

motion and the declaration of plaintiff’s former counsel submitted in connection with the motion

7

to withdraw as counsel, the court finds unpersuasive the anemic declarations submitted by

8

plaintiffs in opposition to the motion for sanctions. The court finds that plaintiffs willfully

9

disobeyed the court’s order. However, such a finding does not end the analysis. In determining

10

whether terminating sanctions are appropriate, the court must consider five factors: (1) the

11

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, (2) the court’s need to manage its docket,

12

(3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, (4) the public policy favoring disposition

13

of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Connecticut Gen.

14

Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007); see also

15

Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1056-1057 (9th Cir. 1998).

16

This case was filed February 14, 2013 and has been pending for over two years. The first

17

factor therefore supports defendants’ position. Because plaintiffs have failed to produce any

18

discovery or produce key witnesses for deposition, defendants have been severely hampered in

19

properly litigating this case and have been prejudiced thereby; thus the third factor also favors

20

defendants. The second factor ties in with the third: to avoid prejudice to defendants, discovery

21

would have to be reopened and the scheduling order modified. But extension of the discovery

22

cut-off would also prejudice defendants because they would incur additional costs litigating a

23

matter which for over two years has failed to produce any evidence in support of plaintiff’s

24

claims. On balance, the second factor weighs in favor of defendants. However, the fourth factor

25

weighs against the imposition of terminating sanctions because there is a potentially dispositive

26

motion for summary judgment noticed for hearing on March 27, 2015, which will adjudicate the

27

matter on the merits. With respect to the fifth factor, the court finds that imposition of monetary

28

sanctions would be of little avail. Plaintiffs already have a judgment against them in favor of
4

1

defendants in the amount of several hundreds of thousands of dollars and plaintiffs have a dismal

2

history of meeting their financial obligations with respect to their attorneys and accountant. A

3

sanction less drastic than dismissal, however, appears to be readily available and which mirrors

4

plaintiffs’ culpable conduct.
Having failed to comply with the court’s order to produce responsive documents and

5
6

provide complete responses to the interrogatories, plaintiffs should be precluded from introducing

7

documentary evidence not previously provided to defendants and precluding testimonial evidence

8

from any witness whose deposition was properly noticed by defendants but unilaterally cancelled

9

by plaintiffs.5 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). Whether terminating sanctions should issue in

10

this matter is, in this court’s view, a very close question. Given, however, the imminency of the

11

motion for summary judgment, which will decide the case on the merits, and the availability of a

12

less drastic sanction, the court finds that balance of the five factors set forth above can be suitably

13

struck by imposing evidentiary sanctions against plaintiffs. The court therefore declines to

14

recommend terminating sanctions against plaintiffs6 but will recommend the issuance of

15

evidentiary sanctions as set forth below.

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

17

1. Defendants’ motion for sanctions and joinder therein (ECF Nos. 100, 101) be granted

18

in part; and

19

2. Evidentiary sanctions be imposed on plaintiffs precluding plaintiffs from introducing

20

into evidence, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment or at trial, any documents that

21

were not produced by plaintiffs prior to February 14, 2015 and any testimonial evidence from

22

5

23

The witnesses whose depositions were unilaterally cancelled by plaintiffs were John Duffield,
Daniel Guardino, Tyler McMillan, and persons designated to testify on behalf of the corporate
plaintiffs Welenco and Water Well.

24
6

25
26
27
28

At the hearing, defense counsel urged the court to forthwith grant the motion for terminating
sanctions so that defendants would not be forced to incur further costs in litigating the motion for
summary judgment. Because this court must proceed by findings and recommendations on a
dispositive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a fourteen day objection period is allowed under
the statute, the motion for summary judgment calendared for hearing on March 27, 2015 will
have been fully briefed by the expiration of the objection period. Thus, even if this court
recommended terminating sanctions, no cost savings would accrue to defendants.
5

1

witnesses John Duffield, Daniel Guardino, Tyler McMillan, or any person designated to testify on

2

behalf of the corporate plaintiffs Welenco and Water Well.

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

4

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

5

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

6

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

7

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

8

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

9

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

Dated: March 12, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14

4 welenco.sanc.57

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6