Center for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina

Filing 134

ORDER denying 124 Defendant's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres on 3/13/2018. (js02)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-20905-Civ-KING/TORRES
CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRINA CHEVALDINA,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter is before the Court on Irina Chevaldina’s (“Defendant” or
“Chevaldina”) motion to compel against the Center for Individual Rights
(“Plaintiff”). [D.E. 124]. Plaintiff responded to Chevaldina’s motion on March 2,
2018 [D.E. 129] to which Chevaldina replied on March 13, 2018.

[D.E. 132].

Therefore, Chevaldina’s motion is ripe for disposition. After careful consideration of
the motion, response, reply, relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below,
Chevaldina’s motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract. The complaint – filed on March 11,
2016 [D.E. 1] – alleges that Plaintiff successfully represented Defendant pro bono in
an appeal before the 11th Circuit in Katz v. Google, Appeal No. 14-14525, in which
the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Defendant in a copy

1

infringement action.1 See Katz v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2015), aff’g,
Katz v. Chevaldina, 12-cv-22211, 2014 WL 5385690 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2014).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had few financial obligations under the retainer
agreement in that case and that Plaintiff paid the out of pocket expenses of the suit.
Plaintiff contends that it only asked Defendant for (1) reasonable attorney fees and
expenses as permitted under law, and (2) that Defendant provide Plaintiff with any
fees or expenses that were attributable to Plaintiff’s expenditures and/or the work of
its attorneys.

If Defendant decided to settle the case, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant was also obligated to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable amount in
attorney’s fees and expenses.
In December 2015 – while being represented by another attorney –
Defendant settled all the remaining claims in the Katz case. In the settlement,
Plaintiff claims that Defendant obtained only $10,000 in attorney fees for the work
of Plaintiff’s attorneys as well as both taxable and non-taxable costs.

Shortly

thereafter, Plaintiff sought to challenge the fee award in the Eleventh Circuit, but
Defendant allegedly instructed Plaintiff to withdraw its motion and Plaintiff
reluctantly complied. Therefore, Plaintiff suggests that Defendant did not obtain a
reasonable amount in attorney fees for the work of Plaintiff’s attorneys and that
Defendant breached the retainer agreement.

In exchange for the low sum of

$10,000 in attorney fees, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed with Katz to drop a
substantial claim against Defendant in excess of $100,000.

Because Plaintiff

Plaintiff is a public interest law firm organized under the laws of the District
of Columbia.
2
1

alleges that it has been deprived of a reasonable attorney fee award, Plaintiff seeks
judgment against Defendant in an amount of no less than $105,000 – including
reasonable costs and expenses in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
II.

ANALYSIS

Chevaldina’s motion is to compel Plaintiff to produce documents in response
to three discovery requests. In request 3, Chevaldina seeks “[a]ny documents, ESI
relating to CIR’s request made to the Board for CIR to represent Chevaldina.” [D.E.
124].

Plaintiff refused to produce any documents and provided the following

response:
CIR objects to Request No. 3 on the ground that the word ‘Board’ is
undefined and renders the request vague and ambiguous. CIR further
objects on the ground that the request seeks documents that are not
reasonably related to any claim or defense in this action. Accordingly,
CIR will not produce documents in response to this request.
Id. In request 4, Chevaldina seeks “[a]ny documents, ESI, policy, process regulating
CIR’s request to the Board.” Id. Plaintiff again refused to produce any documents
and proffered the following objections:
CIR objects to Request No. 4 on the ground that the word ‘Board’ is
undefined and renders the request vague and ambiguous. CIR further
objects on the ground that ‘documents, ESI, policy, process, regulating
CIR’s request’ is vague and ambiguous because it is unclear how most
of those items identified can ‘regulate’ a ‘request.’ CIR further objects
on the ground that the request seeks documents that are not
reasonably related to any claim or defense in this action. Accordingly,
CIR will not produce documents in response to this request.
Id. In request 5, Chevaldina seeks “[a]ll documents, ESI relating to [the] Board’s
approval for CIR to represent Chevaldina.” Similar to the prior requests, Plaintiff
objected and refused to produce any documents:
3

CIR objects to Request No. 5 on the ground that the word ‘Board’ is
undefined and renders the request vague and ambiguous. CIR further
objects on the ground that the request seeks documents that are not
reasonably related to any claim or defense in this action. Accordingly,
CIR will not produce documents in response to this request.
Id.2
Chevaldina repeats the same argument in support of all three requests and
suggests that the items sought are relevant to determine Plaintiff’s sources of
financing in the underlying litigation:
Mr. Rosman, acting on behalf of CIR, advised Chevaldina that the
Board needs to approve the source of financing [for] Chevaldina’s
appeal case, and who and how [sic] will compensate attorney’s fee and
cost to CIR for Chevaldina’s appeal.
Based on this CIR’s
representation, and Board approval Chevaldina entered into attorneyclient agreement with CIR.
Id.

Chevaldina also contends that the “requested documents are relevant to

determine the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the agreement
(that is the subject of this lawsuit), and to CIR’s claim for breach and damages.” Id.
After considering the arguments presented, Chevaldina has failed to meet
her burden of demonstrating how any of the items sought are relevant to the
allegations or defenses in this action. See Suncast Techs., L.L.C. v. Patrician Prod.,
Inc., 2008 WL 179648, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2008) (“Because the relevancy of the
discovery request was not readily apparent, the party seeking the discovery
(i.e., Plaintiffs) had the burden to show the relevancy of the request.”) (citations

Plaintiff’s objection that the word “Board” is undefined is no longer at issue.
In its response, Plaintiff acknowledges that Chevaldina must have meant Board of
Directors in her discovery requests.
2

4

omitted). Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that Chevaldina breached the retainer
agreement when she failed to obtain a reasonable amount in attorneys’ fees for the
work performed in the underlying litigation.

[D.E. 1].

On the other hand,

Chevaldina alleges in her counterclaim that Plaintiff breached the retainer
agreement by refusing to represent her with free legal representation during
settlement negotiations.

[D.E. 90]. Neither party’s alleged breach relates to (1)

Plaintiff’s request to represent Chevaldina, (2) the policies regulating (whatever
that means) Plaintiff’s request to the Board, or (3) the Board’s approval of the legal
representation. It is therefore unclear why internal discussions on one side of a
contract are related to either party’s claims.
Moreover, Chevaldina has repeatedly stated in her related filings that “the
language of the agreement shall be controlling in all respects,” [D.E. 86] and that
“the words of a contract are the best evidence of the intent of the parties.” [D.E. 95].
In fact, this is the first time that “the intent of the parties,” has been raised as an
issue in this case because both parties claim that the other breached the clear
provisions of the contract. In other words, neither party has alleged that there was
an ambiguity in the retainer agreement. But, even if we assume that the subjective
intent of one side of the retainer agreement was relevant in this case, Chevaldina’s
requests still fail because they make no effort to focus on documents that would
disclose that intent with respect to the topics she claims are relevant. And because
Chevaldina “cannot first demonstrate the relevance of the information sought, as
relevance serves as the gate through which all discovery requests must pass,” her
5

motion to compel must be DENIED. Stern v. O’Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 670 (S.D.
Fla. 2008).
It also appears that Chevaldina’s production requests are akin to issues
raised in a prior motion where Chevaldina attempted to compel Plaintiff to produce
items relating to donations that financed her case.

But, as we explained

beforehand, we can find no case where the financing – via donations or otherwise –
of a public interest law firm has undermined a breach of contract claim.

If

Chevaldina’s position was correct, it would allow any party to willingly breach a
contract with a public interest law firm – without any consequences – as long as the
law firm receives other sources of revenue during its representation of a client.
That cannot be the law because it would lead to unforeseen consequences and allow
other sources of financing to eviscerate breach of contract claims.

Therefore,

Chevaldina’s request for documents in relation to “the source of financing [for]
Chevaldina’s appeal case,” [D.E. 124] and how Plaintiff would be compensated for
other miscellaneous costs are irrelevant because – even if Chevaldina establishes
that Plaintiff received contributions specifically earmarked to cover the costs of her
case (which Plaintiff argues does not exist) – it would not change Chevaldina’s
contract with Plaintiff to pay a reasonable attorneys’ fee at the conclusion of her
case. Accordingly, Chevaldina’s motion to compel is DENIED.

6

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Chevaldina’s motion to compel is DENIED. [D.E. 124].3
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 13th day of
March, 2018.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge

As for Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Chevaldina, that motion is also
DENIED.
7
3