Silva v. Teksystems, Inc

Filing 32

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion for Sanctions.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13

JOSE SILVA,
Plaintiff,
v.

14
TEKSYSTEMS, INC.,
15
Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.:12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

17
18

Currently before the Court is Defendant TEKsystems, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating,

19

Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions and to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel. ECF No. 15 (the

20

“Sanctions Motion”). A hearing was held on July 25, 2013 (the “July 25 hearing”). Having

21

considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the arguments of the parties, the Court

22

hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Sanctions Motion.

23

1.

Background of the Instant Motion

24

Defendant filed the Sanctions Motion on May 20, 2013. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on

25

June 3, 2013, ECF No. 18 (“Opposition”), and Defendant filed a Reply on June 10, 2013, ECF No.

26

19 (“Reply”). While the Sanctions Motion was pending, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay

27

Proceedings on June 14, 2013. ECF No. 20 (“Motion to Stay”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the

28

Motion to Stay on June 17, 2013. ECF No. 21. On June 27, 2013, Defendant filed a Supplemental
1
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Brief in Support of the Motion to Stay (“Defendant’s Supplemental Stay Brief”). On June 28,
2013, Plaintiff filed an additional supplemental brief, ECF No. 24 (“Plaintiff’s Supplemental Stay
Brief”), to which Defendant filed an additional reply, ECF No. 25. On July 8, 2013, the Court
granted a partial stay of discovery, and issued its tentative rulings on the Sanctions Motion. See
ECF No. 26. (“Stay Order”). The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer in light of the
Court’s tentative ruling, and to file a status report on the results of their meet and confer effort. See
id. at 6. On July 12, 2013, Defendant filed a Status Report, ECF No. 29 (“Defendant’s Status
Report”), and Plaintiff filed a Status Report, ECF No. 30 (“Plaintiff’s Status Report.”). On July 25,
2013, Defendant filed a Supplemental Sanctions Brief. ECF No. 31 (“Supplemental Sanctions
Brief”).
This extensive briefing reveals that it is undisputed that Plaintiff made a recording of his
conversation with his former supervisors (Defendant’s employees), without the knowledge of these
supervisors (the “disputed recording”). See Sanctions Mot. at 1. It is also undisputed that
Plaintiff’s counsel failed to produce the disputed recording in initial disclosures or in response to
discovery requests until May of 2013, and affirmatively misrepresented that Plaintiff had produced
all material responsive to Defendant’s discovery requests. See id. Defendant contends, and
Plaintiff does not dispute, that conversations between Plaintiff and his supervisors are a “critical
part” of Plaintiff’s case, in which Plaintiff seeks compensation for work he allegedly performed
off-the-clock for Defendant. Id.
Plaintiff’s counsel initially represented that he did not identify the disputed recording in
Plaintiff’s disclosures because Plaintiff’s counsel intended to use the disputed recording only for
impeachment, and did not produce it in response to discovery requests because he wanted to first
get the supervisors’ testimony about whether the recorded meeting was intended to be confidential.
ECF No. 15-1, Decl. of Michael S. Kun in Support of Sanctions Mot. (“Kun Decl.”), Exh. 21.
Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that if the recorded meeting had been confidential, Plaintiff could
be subject to both criminal and civil liability for making the recording without his former
supervisors’ knowledge or consent. Opp’n to Sanctions at 5.
Later, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that he was unaware of the disputed recording until
2
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

shortly after seeking Plaintiff’s initial disclosures on January 8, 2013, and chose not to disclose the
disputed recording until May 8, 2013, after deposing the recorded former supervisors and
determining whether disclosure of the recording risked subjecting Plaintiff to civil or criminal
liability. See Opp’n to Sanctions at 5 (citing Decl. of Robert S. Nelson in Opposition to Sanctions
Mot. (“Nelson Sanctions Decl.”) ¶ 3); Opp’n to Sanctions at 8. Defendant states that it did not
receive the disputed recording until May 14, 2013. Sanctions Mot. at 7.
2.

8

As noted in the Court’s Stay Order, the Court does not find that the current record supports

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

the imposition of terminating sanctions, in light of the availability of less drastic sanctions that can
sufficiently address the prejudice suffered by Defendant. See Leon v. IDX Systems Cor., 464 F.3d
951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337,
348 (9th Cir. 1995) (articulating the five factors a court should consider in assessing the propriety
of dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) courts’ needs to
manage their own dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice; (4) the public policy of favoring disposition of
cases on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions).1
Defendant represents that it has been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s conduct because, if Plaintiff

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

had timely disclosed the disputed recording, Defendant would have “immediately sought to
conduct discovery on the recording and attempted to determine if there were other records,” and
“deposed Plaintiff immediately . . . before Plaintiff had much time to concoct a tale about this
recording or others that he made.” Defendant’s Supplemental Brief at 4. Defendant also
represents that it would have propounded different discovery and conducted witness interviews
differently. Id.
As indicated in the Stay Order, the Court does not find the delay from January to May of

24
25
26
27
28

The Court DENIES Terminating Sanctions

1

The cases relied on by Defendant in support of its motion for terminating sanctions involve
significantly more egregious conduct. See, e.g., Combs v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F.2d 486, 488
(9th Cir. 1991) (granting terminating sanctions when plaintiff’s counsel altered the substance of
plaintiff’s testimony in a deposition transcript); Valley Engineers Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d
1051, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 1998) (granting terminating sanctions when defendant’s attorneys failed to
produce a crucial piece of evidence that was responsive to a request for production for over three
years, violated court orders by failing to produce it for two years, and warnings and monetary
sanctions had proved ineffective).
3
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2013 is sufficiently prejudicial to warrant terminating the case, given that discovery is not
scheduled to close until August 29, 2013. The Court also finds that the less drastic evidentiary and
monetary sanctions ordered below will sufficiently address the prejudice suffered by Defendant,
while allowing the case to proceed to a disposition on the merits.
3.

The Court DENIES Disqualifying Sanctions

Similarly, as indicated in the Stay Order, the Court does not find disqualification of counsel
merited at this point. While the Court’s “paramount” concern in considering a motion to disqualify
should be “the preservation of public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the
integrity of the bar[, . . .] disqualification is a drastic course of action that should not be taken
simply out of hypersensitivity to ethical nuances or the appearance of impropriety.” DeLuca v.
State Fish Co., Inc., 217 Cal. App. 4th 671 (2013) (quoting Roush v. Seagate Technology, LLC,
150 Cal. App. 4th 210, 218–219 (2007)). Because of their susceptibility to tactical abuse,
“[m]otions to disqualify counsel are strongly disfavored.” See Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. First Data
Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that disqualification would delay resolution and
possibly derail the case if Plaintiff is unable to find new counsel. Opp’n to Sanctions at 10. As
indicated in the Stay Order, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct sufficiently
egregious to warrant such a result. See Stay Order at 3. Rather, as discussed below, the Court
finds that less drastic sanctions can adequately remedy the harm caused by Plaintiff’s counsel’s
misconduct.
4.

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for
Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions

The Court finds that evidentiary and monetary sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 26(g) (“Rule 26(g)”) provide the appropriate remedy in the instant case. Rule 26(g)

25

requires that every discovery response be signed by an attorney, and specifies that the attorney’s

26

signature “certifies that to the best of the [person’s] knowledge, information, and belief formed

27
28

after a reasonable inquiry” that the response is complete and correct. See R & R Sails Inc. v. Ins.
Co. of State of PA, 251 F.R.D. 520, 525 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)). Rule
4
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5

26(g)(3) specifically provides that “if a certification violates this rule without substantial
justification, the court . . . must impose an appropriate sanction on the signer, the party on whose
behalf the signer was acting, or both. The sanction may include an order to pay the reasonable
expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation.”
Plaintiff’s counsel does not contest that he failed to supplement Plaintiff’s initial disclosures

6
7
8
9

once Plaintiff’s counsel learned of the disputed recording. Nor does he contest that he signed and
served responses to document requests stating that all responsive documents had been produced,
while withholding the disputed recording (which would have been responsive to the requests).
Rather, Plaintiff contends that he was not obligated to supplement his initial disclosures

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

because he planned to use the recording solely to impeach Messrs. Randazzo and Hughes at trial.
Opp’n at 11. However, because the content of the disputed recording is central to Plaintiff’s case,
this cannot justify Plaintiff’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations. See Robert Kubicek
Architects & Associates, Inc. v. Bosley, No. 11-01945, 2013 WL 998222 (D. Ariz. Mar. 13, 2013)
(“If [a] document has independent relevancy to the merits of the case, the document is not ‘solely
for impeachment’ and must be disclosed to opposing counsel.”) (citing Klonoski v. Mahlab, 156
F.3d 255, 270 (1st Cir. 1998)). Moreover, Plaintiff’s explanation for his failure to disclose the
disputed recording was his desire to depose Messrs. Randazzo and Hughes before they knew of the
existence of the recording. See Opp’n at 14; Decl. of Michael S. Kun in Support of Motion, Ex.
21.
The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to present a substantial justification for his failure to
comply with Rule 26(g), and GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for monetary and evidentiary
sanctions. Because Plaintiff’s misconduct denied Messrs. Randazzo and Hughes an opportunity to
properly prepare for their depositions, the Court determines that the appropriate sanction for
Plaintiff’s misconduct is to strike their deposition testimony in its entirety, including for
impeachment purposes. Plaintiff suggests that the entire depositions need not be struck, because
parts of the testimony “involved material issues not in any way related to the recording,” such as
“how much off-the-clock overtime Plaintiff worked,” and “whether Defendant made any effort to
prevent Plaintiff from continuing to work off-the-clock.” Plaintiff’s Status Report at 4. However,
5
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6

the Court finds that these issues overlap substantially with the content of the disputed recording, in
which Messrs. Randazzo and Hughes discuss with Plaintiff his off-the-clock overtime and
Defendant’s responses. See also Defendant’s Status Report at 5 (“The overwhelming majority of
the deposition related to the issues that are covered on the recording – Defendant’s operations,
Plaintiff’s employment, and Plaintiff’s assignment at Cisco.”).
Additionally, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request that Plaintiff pay defense counsel’s

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

fees and costs for preparation and defense of Messrs. Randazzo and Hughes for the stricken
depositions. Defendant’s counsel, Michael S. Kun, declared that he spent in excess of 14.0 hours
preparing for and defending the depositions of Hughes and Randazzo, at a billing rate of $517.50,
for a total of $7,245.00. See Declaration of Defendant’s Counsel Michael S. Kun, ECF No. 51-1, ¶
20. Kun also declared that he spent $350 in travel costs. Id. The Court DENIES Defendant’s
request that Plaintiff pay all costs and fees associated with the instant motion. Rather, Plaintiff
must pay the costs of the 3 hours Kun spent preparing the Reply to the Sanctions Motion. Based
on Kun’s billing rate of $517.50, this totals $1,552.50. See id. At the July 25 hearing, Plaintiff did
not object to these amounts, which total $9,147.50. Accordingly, by August 23, 2013, Plaintiff
shall deliver to Michael S. Kun a check made payable to TEKsystems, Inc., for the total amount of
$9,147.50.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s request to entirely exclude the disputed recording. Rather,

19
20
21
22

its use will be limited to impeachment purposes only. Plaintiff has represented that was the only
purpose for which he intended to use it, and Defendant indicated that it was prepared to stipulate to
the Court’s tentative ruling.2
5.

23

In the Stay Order, the Court expressed concern that in response to document requests

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Privilege Log

2

Because Plaintiff has represented that he seeks to use the disputed recording for impeachment
purposes only, the Court need not decide whether the recording must be excluded under Penal
Code § 632(d). Even if the recording were inadmissible because it contravened § 632, “testimony
as to the content of a recorded conversation is admissible, to the extent that the witness or deponent
‘enjoys an untainted recall,’” and the recording itself would be admissible, as necessary, to
impeach Defendant’s witnesses testimony. See Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 F.3d 660, 667
(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Frio v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 203 Cal. App. 3d 1480, 1493 (1988)).
6
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

seeking recordings Plaintiff made of conversations with Defendant’s employees, Plaintiff
responded that he “has been unable to locate any non-privileged documents.” See Stay Order at 6.
Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce an updated and complete privilege log to
Defendant by July 10, 2013. Id. Plaintiff has failed to produce such a privilege log. Plaintiff
represents that he has not provided an updated privilege log because no privileged documents are
being withheld. See Plaintiff’s Status Report at 4-5 (“Plaintiff could not have provided a privilege
log because there was nothing to log.”). At the July 25, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel provided
inconsistent statements. For example, Plaintiff’s counsel initially stated that he had never provided
a privilege log because he had never withheld documents on the basis of privilege. However, when
Defendant pointed to Plaintiff’s privilege log, (Second Supplemental Decl. of Michael S. Kun in
Support of Defendant’s Supplemental Sanctions Brief, Ex. 31), Plaintiff’s counsel clarified that he
had in fact withheld e-mails between himself and his client before the lawsuit was filed. As an
officer of the Court, Plaintiff’s counsel represented at the hearing that there are no other privileged
documents. The Court accepts this representation and declines to issue any sanctions based on
Plaintiff’s failure to produce an updated privilege log.
6.

Discovery and Case Schedule

The previously stayed discovery may now proceed. As ordered at the July 25, 2013
hearing, by August 1, 2013, Plaintiff shall produce verified supplemental interrogatory responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 19, and 21. The response to Interrogatory No. 19 shall specifically
address the time of day that Plaintiff recorded the conversation, a summary of the substance and
contents of the conversation, whether Plaintiff concealed the recording device, and the date he
provided the recording to his attorney. The response to Interrogatory No. 21 shall specifically
address the date and time of Plaintiff’s communications with Tushar Popat, the location of these
communications, and a summary of the substance and contents of the communications. Plaintiff
shall supplement his document production by August 1, 2013.
Any further discovery disputes shall be brought before Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd.
The case schedule remains as set in the Case Management Order of January 9, 2013. ECF No. 12.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4

Dated: July 25, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Case No.: 12-CV-05347-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS