Steelman Partners LLP v. Sanya Gaosheng Investment Company Ltd.
Filing
101
ORDER that 92 Motion for Sanctions is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 12/24/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
STEELMAN PARTNERS, a Nevada Limited
liability partnership,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SANYA GAOSHENG INVESTMENT
)
COMPANY LTD, a Hong Kong corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:09-cv-01016-GMN-GWF
ORDER
Motion for Sanctions (#92)
14
15
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (#92) filed on November
16
19, 2015. Defendant filed its Opposition (#97) on December 7, 2015 and Plaintiff filed its Reply
17
(#99) on December 17, 2015. The Court conducted a hearing in this matter on December 22, 2015.
18
BACKGROUND
19
Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and copyright infringement against
20
Defendant in June 2009. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for an architectural
21
design for a resort hotel project and for using Plaintiff’s plans, drawings and renderings in violation
22
of Plaintiff’s copyright. After the parties engaged in substantial discovery and unsuccessful
23
settlement negotiations in March-June 2011, Defendant’s counsel moved to withdraw and their
24
motion was granted on July 11, 2015. Defendant thereafter failed to retain new counsel to represent
25
it in this action. On September 27, 2011, the undersigned magistrate judge recommended that
26
Defendant’s answer be stricken and its default entered based on its failure to retain new counsel.
27
Report and Recommendation (#55). The district judge approved and adopted the recommendation
28
on November 4, 2011 and Defendant’s default was entered on that date. See Docket Entries #56
1
and #57. Plaintiff thereupon moved for entry of a default judgment which was granted by the Court
2
on November 23, 2011 in the amount of $3,549,854.00. Order Granting Motion for Default
3
Judgment (#59) and Default Judgment (#60).
4
Plaintiff’s efforts to collect the judgment have been unsuccessful. In November 2012,
5
Plaintiff certified the default judgment in the Central District of California. Thereafter, on April 17,
6
2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment to add as additional judgment debtors, Mr. Piu
7
Ying Ngan and Mrs. Katherine Ngan (“the Ngans”), whom Plaintiff claims are the alter egos of
8
Defendant. The court held that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden under California Code of Civil
9
Procedure Section 187 which requires Plaintiff to show (1) that the new party is the alter ego of the
10
old party and (2) that the new party had controlled the litigation, thereby having had the opportunity
11
to litigate, in order to satisfy due process concerns. See Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for
12
Protective Order (#93), Exhibit 6, Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Judgment Debtors.
13
In April 2015, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 30(b)(6) notice of deposition
14
to be taken on April 24, 2015. The notice directed Defendant to produce a deponent to testify on the
15
following areas of inquiry: (1) The person who directed Mr. Anthony Tong (Defendant’s Hong
16
Kong counsel) in connection with the litigation; (2) Mr. Pui Ying Ngan’s involvement in the
17
Litigation; (3) Mrs. Katherine Ngan’s involvement in the Litigation; (4) the identity of the persons
18
or entities involved in and/or responsible for financing and directing the Litigation on behalf of
19
Sanya; (5) Payment of legal bills of Sanya’s counsel, including related sub-topics; (6) the person or
20
persons at Sanya responsible for retaining Sanya’s counsel, signing engagement letters with Sanya’s
21
counsel, and/or paying Sanya’s counsel; (7) the person or persons at Sanya that requested that Lewis
22
& Roca discount their legal fees during the litigation; (8) the identity of the person or persons
23
involved in directing the litigation on behalf of Sanya; (9) the identity of the person or persons
24
involved in or responsible for the strategic decisions in the Litigation; (10) the identity of the person
25
or persons at Sanya that were the main point of contact for Sanya’s counsel; (11) the identity of the
26
person or persons at Sanya that made or participated in litigation strategy decisions or drafted
27
litigation materials; (12) Sanya’s engagement letter(s) with Sanya’s counsel related to the Litigation;
28
(13) the identity of the person or persons involved in the preparation of memoranda, briefing or
2
1
reports provided to Sanya’s counsel concerning the Litigation; (14) the identity of the person or
2
persons at Sanya that reviewed, edited and/or approved pleadings and other litigation materials in
3
connection with the Litigation; (15) the identity of the person or persons at Sanya that was
4
responsible for settlement discussions with Steelman, including the person that approved settlement
5
offers made to Steelman; (16) the identity of the person or persons at Sanya that was involved in
6
and/or responsible for the mediation between Steelman and Sanya; and (17) documents in Sanya’s
7
possession relevant to the foregoing areas of inquiry. Motion to Compel (#80), Exhibit C.
8
Defendant did not serve any written objection to the notice of deposition or the areas of
9
inquiry listed in the notice. Nor did Defendant file a motion for protective order against the taking
10
of the deposition. Defendant did not appear for the deposition on April 24, 2015. On August 24,
11
2015, Plaintiff filed its motion to compel Defendant to appear for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
12
Defendant did not file a response to the motion to compel. Nor did it appear at the October 2, 2015
13
hearing on the motion. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered Defendant to
14
appear for the deposition to be re-noticed no later than December 2, 2015. The Court also granted
15
Plaintiff’s request for costs and attorney’s fees relating to Defendant’s nonappearance and the filing
16
of the motion to compel. Order (#84).
17
In accordance with the Court’s order, on October 8, 2015 Plaintiff served an amended notice
18
to take Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The deposition was scheduled for November 4, 2015.
19
Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (#91), Exhibit B. On November 2, 2015, Defendant filed
20
a motion for protective order in regard to the re-noticed deposition. See Motion for Protective
21
Order (#87). Defendant did not request emergency relief or move to stay the taking of deposition.
22
Once again, Defendant failed to appear for the deposition. On December 23, 2015, the Court denied
23
Defendant’s motion for protective order on the grounds that it was untimely. In this regard, the
24
Court had previously granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel the Defendant to appear for
25
the deposition. If the Defendant has legitimate objections to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, it should
26
have filed a motion for protective order in response to the first notice of deposition in April 2015, or
27
should have filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on August 2, 2015. See
28
Minutes of Proceedings (#100).
3
1
Plaintiff now moves for sanctions based on Defendant’s failure to appear for the re-noticed
2
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on November 4, 2015 as required by Order (#84). Plaintiff argues that
3
Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s order was willful and justifies the imposition of
4
sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) which provides as follows:
5
7
If a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent—or a
witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an
order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule
26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue
further just orders. They may include the following:
8
(i)
6
9
10
11
directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the
action, as the prevailing party claims.
Pursuant to this provision, Plaintiff requests that the following matters, which were the
subject of the areas of inquiry in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition, be deemed established:
12
1.
Sanya is owned and controlled by Mr. Pui Ying Ngan and Mrs.
Katherine Ngan (the “Ngans”).
2.
There is a unity of interest and ownership such that the
separate personalities of Sanya and the Ngans do not exist.
3.
The Ngans co-mingled personal assets and funds with those of
Sanya.
4.
The Ngans treated the debts of Sanya as their own and treated
Sanya’s liabilities as their own personal responsibility.
5.
The Ngans used personal funds to pay for debts owed by
Sanya to Steelman.
6.
The Ngans used funds from other entities they owned and
controlled to pay debts owed to Steelman.
7.
The Ngans used Sanya as a mere shell for the venture of
developing a resort property.
8.
The Ngans used Sanya to execute a multi-million dollar
contract with Steelman with no ability or intention to pay for
the design.
9.
After the judgment entered against Sanya, the Ngans closed
Sanya’s doors, moved the entity out of its office in an effort to
obstruct Steelman’s collection efforts.
10.
The Ngans diverted Sanya’s assets in order to avoid liability to
Steelman.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
...
4
1
11.
The same office location was used for numerous entities
owned and controlled by the Ngans.
12.
The Ngans understood and appreciated that there was a
sufficient unity of interest to treat the Ngans and Sanya as
interchangeable alter egos of one another.
13.
The Ngans controlled, reviewed and approved all payments
made by Sanya, either to Steelman during the project or to
Sanya’s counsel in connection with the lawsuit filed by
Steelman against Sanya in 2009, Case No. 09-cv-01016-ECRGWF (“the Nevada Litigation”).
14.
The Ngans controlled and financed the Nevada Litigation.
15.
The Ngans hired and communicated with defense counsel
regarding the Nevada Litigation.
16.
The Ngans were the main point of contact for Mr. Anthony
Tong, who in turn was the only point of contact with respect
Sanya’s Nevada counsel for the Nevada Litigation.
17.
The Ngans were solely responsible for and controlled the
settlement negotiations with Steelman on behalf of Sanya
related to the Nevada Litigation.
18.
The Ngans paid for, and continue to pay, for services related to
the Nevada Litigation provided by defense counsel from their
personal finances.
19.
The Ngans participated in and were responsible for litigation
strategy decisions, including review and approval of litigation
materials, such as motions and responses, on behalf of Sanya
in the Nevada Litigation.
20.
By their direct involvement in the Nevada Litigation, the
Ngans are fully apprised of the litigation as a main point of
contact for Sanya.
21.
By their direct involvement in this lawsuit, the Ngans had
occasion to conduct the Nevada Litigation with diligence
corresponding to the risk of personal liability that is involved.
22.
The Ngans are virtually represented in the Nevada Litigation.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DISCUSSION
24
“‘Rule 37(b)(2) contains two standards—one general and one specific—that limit a district
25
court’s discretion. First, any sanction must be ‘just’; second, the sanction must be specifically
26
related to the particular ‘claim’ which was at issue in the order to provide discovery.’” Navellier v.
27
Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir. 2001), quoting Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., v. Compagnie des
28
5
1
Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). In Navellier,
2
counsel for the plaintiff willfully refused to answer questions at his deposition concerning the
3
circumstances under which insurance was procured for the Fund, even after being ordered to answer
4
the question by the special master. As a sanction for the refusal to answer this question, the district
5
court instructed the jury that plaintiff breached his duty to procure liability insurance for the Fund.
6
The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction.
7
Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition is directed at obtaining evidence to support a
8
renewed effort to add Mr. Pui Ying Ngan and Mrs. Katherine Ngan as judgment debtors. Although
9
Mr. and Mrs. Ngan may be the owners of Defendant Sanya Gaosheng Investment Company, Ltd.,
10
and may have participated in and controlled its conduct during this litigation, they are not parties to
11
this lawsuit. (Nor, of course, were they designated as deponents for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.)
12
Because Mr. and Mrs. Ngan are not parties, the Court does not believe the requested evidentiary
13
sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i) are appropriate. Such sanctions cannot reasonably be binding
14
on the non-party Ngans with respect to any renewed motion to add them as judgment debtors.
15
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is precluded by res judicata or collateral estoppel from again
16
attempting to add the Ngans as judgment debtors. Plaintiff argues that the previous order denying
17
their motion does not have preclusive effect. This Court takes no position on that issue.
18
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter the requested evidentiary sanction against Defendant
19
Sanya without per se making the sanctions applicable to the Ngans. The Court, however, sees no
20
purpose to such a sanction given that Plaintiff already has a judgment against Defendant Sanya,
21
albeit one that is apparently uncollectible from that entity.
22
The Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s inability to obtain discovery from the Defendant or
23
its principals that might allow it to pursue collection from other sources. Nevertheless, the Court
24
concludes that the requested sanction is not proper because it is directed at persons who are not the
25
disobedient party. The Court will, however, award to Plaintiff its reasonable costs and attorney’s
26
fees relating to its second attempt to depose Defendant and in pursuing the motion for sanctions.
27
The Court will stay the enforcement of these additional monetary sanctions if Defendant appears for
28
and testifies fully at a rescheduled Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Accordingly,
6
1
2
3
4
5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (#92) is granted, in part,
and denied, in part as follows:
1.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for evidentiary sanctions pursuant to Rule
37(b)(2)(A)(i).
2.
The Court awards to Plaintiff its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in
6
connection with the re-noticed deposition on November 4, 2015 and its motion for sanctions. The
7
Court will stay and potentially vacate imposition of these monetary sanctions if Defendant appears
8
for a re-noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositon and provides responsive and complete testimony regarding
9
the areas of inquiry.
10
3.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall, no later than 15 days from entry of this order, serve and
11
file a memorandum, supported by the affidavit of counsel, establishing the amount of attorney’s fees
12
and costs incurred in the motion addressed in this order. The memorandum shall provide a
13
reasonable itemization and description of the work performed, identify the attorney(s) or other staff
14
member(s) performing the work, the customary fee of the attorney(s) or staff member(s) for such
15
work, and the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney performing the work. The attorney’s
16
affidavit shall authenticate the information contained in the memorandum, provide a statement that
17
the bill has been reviewed and edited, and a statement that the fees and costs charged are reasonable.
18
4.
Counsel for Defendant shall have 15 days from service of the memorandum of costs
19
and attorney’s fees in which to file a responsive memorandum addressing the reasonableness of the
20
costs and fees sought, and any equitable considerations deemed appropriate for the court to consider
21
in determining the amount of costs and fees which should be awarded.
22
23
24
5.
Counsel for Plaintiff shall have 11 days from service of the responsive memorandum
in which to file a reply.
DATED this 24th day of December, 2015.
25
26
27
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
28
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?