Friedman v. Bloomberg LP et al

Filing 258

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order:(1) Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2), the court strikes the plaintiff's objection to the defendants' motion to compel (ECF No. 245 ) and the plaintiff's motion to m odify or vacate (ECF No. 249 ).(2) Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2), until a notice is filed that the sanctions entered in Friedman v. SThree plc., No. 3:14-cv-378, aff'd, Friedman v. Radujko, 854 Fed. App� 39;x 390 (2d Cir. 2021), have been paid in full, Dan Friedman is prohibited from filing any pleadings or other documents in any case in this court, except for such a notice. The court will strike any prohibited filings made by Dan Friedman. (3) Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2), until a notice is filed that the sanctions entered in Friedman v. SThree plc., No. 3:14-cv-378, aff'd, Friedman v. Radujko, 854 Fed. App'x 390 (2d Cir. 2021), have been paid in full, Alan H. Kaufman is prohibited from filing any pleadings or other documents in any case in this court, except for such a notice. The court will strike any prohibited filings made by Alan H. Kaufman.(4) Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16( g)(2), until a notice is filed that the sanctions entered in Friedman v. SThree plc., No. 3:14-cv-378, aff'd, Friedman v. Radujko, 854 Fed. App'x 390 (2d Cir. 2021), have been paid in full, Alan H. Kaufman is barred from appearing as an attorney in any matter in this court except for this case.It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 03/03/2022. (Ghinaglia Socorro, F.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------- x
DAN FRIEDMAN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
BLOOMBERG, L.P., CHRISTOPHER
:
DOLMETSCH, ERIK LARSEN, MICHAEL :
HYTHA, and ANDREW DUNN,
:
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------- x

Civil No. 3:15-cv-443 (AWT)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S FILINGS
For the reasons set forth below, the court strikes
Plaintiff’s Objection to Motion to Compel (ECF No. 245) and
Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion to Modify or Vacate (ECF
No. 249).
I.

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff is represented by Attorney Kaufman and by
Attorney Grygiel in this case and also in Friedman v. SThree
plc., No. 3:14-cv-378 (D. Conn.) (the “Palladyne Case”). In the
Palladyne Case, on October 24, 2016 the court “determined that
plaintiff has failed to adequately respond to the defendants’
discovery requests and to comply with the Court’s orders, and
that sanctions are therefore appropriate.” Friedman v. SThree
plc., 2016 WL 7374546, *1 (D. Conn. Oct. 24, 2016). The court
found that “[t]hroughout the course of jurisdictional discovery

-1-

in this matter, plaintiff has repeatedly represented that all
responsive documents had been produced, when in fact, complete
searches were not conducted.” Id. at *7. The court also found
that “[d]efendants’ effort at obtaining jurisdictional discovery
have been repeatedly frustrated by plaintiff’s counsel’s
contradictory representations, late and incomplete productions,
and failure to oversee the searches and production of
discovery.” Id. Accordingly, the court concluded that
“defendants are entitled to costs and fees as a sanction for
plaintiff’s conduct” and, with a two-day grace period,
sanctioned the plaintiff $150 “for each business day that the
plaintiff fails to produce either the materials sought or a
certification that such materials are no longer in existence.”
Id. at *8. The plaintiff never filed an objection to the order.
In the months that followed, the court made clear that the
plaintiff’s counsel could be held jointly and severally liable
for sanctions because he was at fault. See Friedman v. Radujko,
854 Fed. App’x 390, 393 (2d Cir. 2021).
On September 15, 2017, the court granted “that portion of
the Palladyne defendants’ motion that seeks to hold plaintiff’s
counsel Alan H. Kaufman jointly and severally liable for the
monetary sanctions, fees and costs that are imposed by this
Order.” Friedman v. SThree plc., 2017 WL 4082678, *16 (D. Conn.
Sept. 15, 2017). The court ordered the plaintiff and Attorney

-2-

Kaufman to pay $30,291.37 to the defendants and to the court.
Id. The court twice granted extensions of time for filing an
objection to the magistrate judge’s ruling. See ECF Nos. 316,
318, 320, 321, Friedman v. SThree plc., No. 3:14-cv-378
(D. Conn.). In the second order granting an extension of time,
the court set October 17, 2021 as the new deadline for the
plaintiff to file an objection and stated that “[n]o further
extensions will be granted.” ECF No. 321. On October 17, 2021,
the plaintiff nevertheless again moved for an extension of time
(ECF No. 324). The court denied that motion on October 20, 2017.
See ECF No. 330. The plaintiff then filed an objection to the
magistrate judge’s ruling on October 27, 2017--ten days after
the deadline. See ECF No. 335.
On October 9, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff’s
objection. See Order re Pl.’s Obj. to Sanctions Order (ECF No.
368), Friedman v. SThree plc., No. 3:14-cv-378 (D. Conn. Oct. 9,
2019). The court found that “the plaintiff’s contentions lack
merit and have as their foundation either mischaracterizations
of the record and/or willfully ignoring portions of the record
that are unfavorable to him,” and affirmed the magistrate
judge’s ruling. Id. at 5.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that “Friedman’s
counsel had ample notice that he could be held jointly and
severally liable for the sanctionable conduct of his client” and

-3-

“affirm[ed] the district court’s order dismissing Friedman’s
objection to the magistrate judge’s sanctions order and its
ruling on sanctions.” Friedman, 854 Fed. App’x at 393-94. The
Mandate issued on October 5, 2021. See ECF No. 372.
In this case, the defendants have moved to compel the
plaintiff to pay attorney’s fees pursuant to the court’s
February 17, 2021 order. See Defs.’ Mot. to Compel Payment of
Sanctions in Compliance with Court Order (ECF No. 234). The
defendants report that the sanctions imposed in the Palladyne
Case remain unpaid. See Supp. Feder Decl. (ECF No. 256-1) at ¶
10 (“[C]ounsel for the Palladyne Defendants confirmed that, as
of today, February 25, 2022, neither Plaintiff nor Mr. Kaufman
had paid the sanctions imposed in that case nor had they heard
from Plaintiff or Mr. Kaufman to arrange for such payment.”).
Nothing in the record in the Palladyne Case or in this case
shows that the sanctions have been paid since.
II.

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 16(g)(2) provides that:
No attorney or litigant against whom a final order of
monetary sanctions has been imposed may file any
pleading or other document until the sanctions have
been paid in full. Pending payment, such attorney or
litigant also may be barred from appearing in court.
An order imposing monetary sanctions becomes final for
the purposes of this local rule when the Court of
Appeals issues its mandate or the time for filing an
appeal expires.

-4-

D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2). In the Palladyne Case, the court
imposed an order of monetary sanctions that held the plaintiff
and Attorney Kaufman “jointly and severally liable for the
monetary sanctions imposed by the Court.” Friedman, 2017 WL
4082678, at *16. That order then became final for purposes of
Local Rule 16(g)(2) when the Mandate was issued on October 5,
2021. See Mandate (ECF No. 372), Friedman v. SThree plc., No.
3:14-cv-378 (D. Conn. Oct. 5, 2021).
Thus, since October 5, 2021, the plaintiff and Attorney
Kaufman have been prohibited from “fil[ing] any pleading or
other document until the sanctions have been paid in full.”
D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2). Likewise, no pleadings or other
documents may be filed on their behalf, including by Attorney
Grygiel.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly:
(1)

Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2), the court strikes
the plaintiff’s objection to the defendants’ motion to
compel (ECF No. 245), filed on December 21, 2021, and the
plaintiff’s motion to modify or vacate (ECF No. 249),
filed on January 24, 2022.

(2)

Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2), until a notice is
filed that the sanctions entered in Friedman v. SThree
plc., No. 3:14-cv-378, aff’d, Friedman v. Radujko, 854

-5-

Fed. App’x 390 (2d Cir. 2021), have been paid in full,
Dan Friedman is prohibited from filing any pleadings or
other documents in any case in this court, except for
such a notice. The court will strike any prohibited
filings made by Dan Friedman.
(3)

Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2), until a notice is
filed that the sanctions entered in Friedman v. SThree
plc., No. 3:14-cv-378, aff’d, Friedman v. Radujko, 854
Fed. App’x 390 (2d Cir. 2021), have been paid in full,
Alan H. Kaufman is prohibited from filing any pleadings
or other documents in any case in this court, except for
such a notice. The court will strike any prohibited
filings made by Alan H. Kaufman.

(4)

Pursuant to D. Conn. Civ. R. 16(g)(2), until a notice is
filed that the sanctions entered in Friedman v. SThree
plc., No. 3:14-cv-378, aff’d, Friedman v. Radujko, 854
Fed. App’x 390 (2d Cir. 2021), have been paid in full,
Alan H. Kaufman is barred from appearing as an attorney
in any matter in this court except for this case.

It is so ordered.
Dated this 3rd day of March 2022, at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

-6-