Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc. v. Lafayette
Filing
118
MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER on Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. ORDER denying 103 Motion for Contempt. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Progressive produce all financial and related documentation for any and all operations which occur at Progressive& #039;s Duson facility within ten (10) days. ORDER granting 103 Motion for Sanctions as stated within this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the re-depositions of the Progressive personnel are to be scheduled immediately, and are to be taken as soo n as possible after the production of the financial information. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sanctions imposed hereby are against counsel, and are to be paid by counsel or his law firm and not by the client, Progressive. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Michael Hill on 10/22/2014. (crt,Yocum, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PROGRESSIVE WASTE SOLUTIONS OF LA., INC.
*CIVIL NO. 6:12-0851
VERSUS
*JUDGE HAIK
LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH
CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT
*MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL
MEMORANDUM RULING ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS AND
ORDER
On October 17, 2014, the undersigned held a hearing in open Court on the Motion for
Contempt and Sanctions filed by defendant, Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government
(“LCG”), on October 7, 2014. [rec. doc. 103]. Appearing at the hearing were David B. Parnell,
Jr., representing plaintiff, Progressive Waste Solutions of LA, Inc. (“Progressive”), and Robert
E. Torian and Cliffe E. Laborde, III, representing LCG. After the hearing, the Court took the
Motion for Contempt and Sanctions under advisement. This Ruling follows.
PROCEDURAL STATUS
The complainant, Progressive, has filed this suit against the Lafayette Consolidated
Government (“LCG”) asserting that LCG unlawfully took the property and/or property rights of
Progressive by revoking building permits which had been issued to Waste Facilities of
Lafayette for the construction of a multipurpose non-processing waste transfer station and
hauling facility on Sunbeam Lane in Lafayette Parish, that had been leased to, and was to be
operated by, Progressive in furtherance of its solid waste hauling and disposal business. LCG
has entered into a settlement agreement with Waste Facilities of Lafayette which also sued
LCG; therefore, Progressive is the sole remaining plaintiff.
This case has been contentious since its inception and has required multiple hearings
and telephone conferences involving, among other things, discovery disputes. It is one of these
discovery disputes which has resulted in this motion for contempt and sanctions filed by LCG.
On July 17, 2014, the Court granted a motion to compel filed by LCG. [Rec. Doc. 93].
During the telephone hearing on the motion to compel, which was not transcribed, Progressive
objected to being compelled to furnish its financial projections for the facility which had been
built in Duson, Louisiana after the permits for the Sunbeam Lane location were revoked. LCG
took the position then, as it has consistently throughout this litigation, that this evidence was
relevant to the damages being claimed by Progressive. The Court agreed, and ordered the
production of the financial information. [Rec. Doc. 97].
On October 7, 2014, LCG filed this motion for contempt and sanctions, arguing that
Progressive had failed to comply with the Court's order. Specifically, LCG argued that only
four pages of financials had been received from Progressive, and then over two months after
the Court compelled the production. Specifically, LCG alleged that it went forward with
depositions of two Progressive representatives on September 30, 2014 at which point counsel
for LCG learned that there were substantial financial reports and data of Progressive which had
not been produced.
When confronted with this failure to produce the records as required by this Court,
counsel for Progressive asserted that there were two different operations at the Duson facility,
that is, waste transfer and hauling, and that the waste transfer records had been produced.
Despite requests to do so, Progressive refused to produce any other records. This motion for
2
contempt followed.
THE HEARING ON THE MOTION
At the hearing on the motion for sanctions and contempt, counsel for Progressive argued
that he believed that the Court's ruling on the motion to compel did not require the production
of financial information related to "hauling" because LCG had never asked for any information
on the hauling operation.
However, the discovery which the Court compelled Progressive to provide did not
differentiate between activities being conducted at the Duson site. Rather, the discovery which
was ordered produced related to operations of Progressive "at the Duson facility".
Nevertheless, counsel for Progressive attempted to justify his failure to comply with this
Court's order by relating it to other discovery which had been requested and also to the joint
protective order which had been entered by the Court on the joint motion of the parties. That
protective order refers to any "waste transfer station" including the one located in Duson.
Thus, in essence, counsel for Progressive argues that the Court's ruling on the motion to
compel is limited, at least in part, by the protective order, the language of which was prepared
by counsel for Progressive and was never intended by the Court, or counsel for LCG, to have
any limiting effect whatsoever.
ANALYSIS
It is clear to the Court that counsel for Progressive has attempted to avoid the clear
ruling of the Court by attempting to parse the Court's ruling based on prior proceedings and
rulings not relevant to the issue here, and by crafting language in a joint protective order in an
3
attempt to provide cover for counsel's attempt to avoid this Court's ruling.
The Court will not countenance such behavior by counsel. The discovery requests which
the Court compelled Progressive to provide were not limited to any particular activity being
conducted at the Duson facility. While there was no court reporter present to record the
telephone hearing on the motion to compel (a circumstance which will not be repeated) the
Court's recollection is clear. At all times, on the issue of damages, LCG has argued that
Progressive has actually gained a financial benefit from its construction of the Duson facility. It
is precisely this argument on damages that the subject discovery sought to address. Apparently,
when counsel for Progressive’s argument that this evidence was irrelevant and therefore should
not be compelled was rejected, counsel simply decided to attempt to avoid the Court's ruling.
This the Court will not allow.
In an attempt to avoid the sanction of contempt counsel argues that any mistake that he
made was honest, and not in bad faith, because he was simply mistaken in the breadth of the
Court's ruling. Given the context of the argument made by counsel to the Court during the
motion to compel, this argument lacks all credibility. Furthermore, if counsel did not
understand the breath of the Court's ruling a motion to clarify the ruling could have been
brought; no such motion was filed, which further supports the Court's belief that counsel was
simply attempting to avoid his obligation to comply with this Court's order. Given the lack of a
transcript of the telephonic hearing on the motion to compel this Court cannot characterize
counsel's failure as contumacious. However, it is only the lack of that transcript which prevents
the Court from doing so.
4
At the hearing on the motion for contempt and sanctions, counsel for LCG, when asked
by the Court what remedy he sought, asked for the dismissal of the claims filed by Progressive.
The failure of counsel for Progressive to comply with this Court's order to compel does not
allow that sanction.
There is no question that the sanction of dismissal is available und under Rule 37. In that
regard, the Fifth Circuit, in Moore v. CITGO Refining and Chemicals Co., L.P., 735 F.3d 309
(5th Cir. 2013) said,
Rule 37(b)(A)(v) expressly contemplates dismissal, and the district court's
discretion thereunder is broad. Bluitt v. Arco Chem., 777 F.2d 188, 191 (5th
Cir.1985). “The courts have consistently demonstrated their willingness to
impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal or default.” Gregory P. Joseph,
Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse § 49(B)(4), at 729 (5th ed.2013)
(citation omitted). “[D]ismissal is a severe sanction that implicates due process.”
FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1380 (5th Cir.1994). Rule 37 dismissal, however
“must be available to the district court in appropriate cases, not merely to
penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to
deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a
deterrent.” Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643,
96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976) (per curiam).
At p. 315-16.
However, the Court in Moore also recognized that:
[S]everal factors [“Conner factors”] must be present before a district court may
dismiss a case with prejudice as a sanction for violating a discovery order: (1)
“the refusal to comply results from willfulness or bad faith and is accompanied
by a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct;” (2) the violation of the
discovery order must be attributable to the client instead of the attorney, (3) the
violating party's misconduct “must substantially prejudice the opposing party;”
and (4) a less drastic sanction would not substantially achieve the desired
deterrent effect. (citations omitted)
Id. At 316.
5
In this case, there is absolutely no indication that Progressive, in any way, had any part
in counsel’s actions. Apparently, the decision to avoid this Court’s order was the sole decision
of counsel. Additionally, the factor of “substantial prejudice” is lacking since the
representatives of Progressive can be deposed with the subject discovery quickly. Therefore,
the sanction of dismissal, as requested by the LCG, is denied.
Furthermore, the sanction of contempt is denied. This, for the Court, is a much closer
call. Again, because no transcript of the hearing on the motion to compel is available, the Court
does not feel that there is sufficient clarity in the record to support a finding of contumacious
conduct on the part of counsel. The Court is convinced that it was clear what was ordered
compelled to be produced, but, without a transcript, the Court believes that the record does not
support such a finding. It is only that lack which precludes the Court from finding counsel’s
conduct to be contumacious and contemptuous.
Other sanctions under Rule 37 will be imposed. Accordingly for those reasons set out
above;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Contempt [rec. doc. 103] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Progressive produce all financial and related
documentation for any and all operations which occur at Progressive’s Duson facility within
ten (10) days.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions [rec. doc. 103] is
GRANTED. The following sanctions are hereby imposed pursuant to Rule 37, F.R.Civ.P.:
6
1. Counsel for Progressive is hereby cast with the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by
LCG with the filing and bringing of this motion, as well as the costs and fees of counsel in
attending the hearing;
2. Counsel for Progressive is cast with the costs and attorney’s fees for the taking of the
deposition of Progressive’s Area Manager, Bruce Emley, and District Manager, Mike Dingler
on September 30, 2014;
3. Counsel for Progressive is cast with the costs and attorney’s fees for the re-deposition
of Bruce Emley, Mike Dingler, and/or any other appropriate representative of Progressive with
knowledge of Progressive’s financial and related documentation for operations at the Duson
facility made appropriate by the production of the financial information ordered hereby.
4. Counsel for LCG is to furnish an affidavit setting out the fees and expenses for items
1 and 2 above by October 27, 2014. Any opposition or traverse of these fees and expenses by
counsel for Progressive shall be filed by October 30, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the re-depositions of the Progressive personnel are
to be scheduled immediately, and are to be taken as soon as possible after the production of the
financial information.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sanctions imposed hereby are against counsel,
and are to be paid by counsel or his lawfirm and not by the client, Progressive.
October 22, 2014, Lafayette, Louisiana.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?