PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas
Filing
498
ORDER Denying 404 Motion to Compel, Denying 414 Motion for Sanctions, and Granting 457 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/25/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
PLAYUP, INC.,
9
10
Order
v.
[Docket Nos. 404, 414, 457]
DR. LAILA MINTAS,
Defendant(s).
11
12
Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-GMN-NJK
Plaintiff(s),
8
The parties return to the Court on their latest round of discovery disputes, this time arising
13 out of Defendant/Counterclaimant Laila Mintas’ efforts to obtain discovery from opposing
14 counsel. Pending before the Court is Mintas’ motion to compel compliance with a subpoena duces
15 tecum seeking document production from the law firm of Zumpano Patricios Popok & Helsten
16 (“ZPPH”). Docket No. 404; see also Docket No. 406 (errata). ZPPH filed a response in
17 opposition. Docket No. 410. Mintas filed a reply. Docket No. 419. Also pending before the
18 Court is PlayUp’s1 countermotion for sanctions. Docket No. 414. Mintas filed a response in
19 opposition. Docket No. 424. PlayUp filed a reply. Docket No. 435. Also pending before the
20 Court is PlayUp’s motion for protective order seeking to preclude the deposition of lead counsel,
21 Michael Popok. Docket No. 457. Pursuant to the Court’s order, Docket No. 460, PlayUp filed a
22 supplement, Docket No. 465. Mintas filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 472. PlayUp
23 filed a reply. Docket No. 486.2 The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local
24 Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, Mintas’ motion to compel (Docket No. 404) is
25
1
The reply clarifies that this motion is actually brought by PlayUp, Inc. and Daniel Simic,
26 the parties to this case. Docket No. 435 at 2 n.1. For ease of reference, the Court will generally
refer to the PlayUp-related parties and counsel collectively as “PlayUp.”
27
2
The Court cites herein to the pagination provided by CMECF, as opposed to the native
28 pagination in the filings.
1
1 DENIED, PlayUp’s motion for protective order (Docket No. 457) is GRANTED, and PlayUp’s
2 motion for sanctions (Docket No. 414) is DENIED.
3 I.
BACKGROUND
4
This case arises from a soured business relationship, resulting in the termination of Mintas
5 as CEO, competing allegations of wrongful conduct, and competing claims for tens of millions of
6 dollars in damages. These circumstances are no doubt personal for all involved—and the case
7 involves a lot of money—which has spawned a contentious and messy discovery process.
8
Mintas brought counterclaims against PlayUp for defamation, false light, and abuse of
9 process. See Docket No. 336 (third amended counterclaims). The counterclaims are predicated in
10 part on statements allegedly made by Popok, attorney for PlayUp, to the press regarding this case
11 and regarding Mintas’ alleged actions. For example, the counterclaims allege that:
12
15
169. Simic, PlayUp Inc. and PlayUp Ltd.’s attorney, Michael
Popok, have [sic] given interview(s) with the media disparaging Dr.
Mintas. Upon information and belief, this was done at the direction
of or with the authorization of Simic, PlayUp Inc. and PlayUp Ltd.
As a result of the negative media coverage, Dr. Mintas suffered
significant damage to her reputation, and FTX declined to re-engage
with PlayUp.
16
...
17
181. Moreover, during the course of this litigation, Simic and
PlayUp Inc.’s attorney has given interview(s) with the media
disparaging Dr. Mintas. See https://www.bonus.com/news/playupexplainer-2/ (last visited February 8, 2023) (Popok quoted as saying,
among other things, “Once the FTX deal fell through, she [Dr.
Mintas] had the audacity to offer herself up as the fireman—she was
the only one who could save the deal with FTX, because everyone
at PlayUp was stupid and she was the one who’d built up the
company. ‘I’m the only one who can bring FTX back to the table;’”
“Mintas remained in the Bahamas after FTX had concluded its
meeting with Simic and Costa. That’s the point at which Popok
claims that Mintas betrayed him and the company;” and “So of
course FTX bailed. What buyer wouldn’t after hearing all the lies
Mintas was telling them. Even if they knew she was being entirely
truthful, who’d want to buy into a company that’s still got someone
like her to deal with.”).
13
14
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
182. Of note, Popok gave this interview at the same time as when
Simic has represented he was with FTX in the Bahamas in an effort
to strike a deal with FTX.
...
2
184. Since filing the lawsuit, PlayUp Inc. has conducted this
litigation with abusive measures and litigation tactics, including, but
not limited to, having their agent, Popok, give interviews to the press
disparaging Dr. Mintas . . .
1
2
3 See Docket No. 336 at ¶¶ 169, 181, 182, 184; see also, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 135, 223.
4
On February 13, 2023, Mintas served Popok’s firm (ZPPH) with a subpoena duces tecum
5 seeking the production of documents regarding communications between ZPPH employees and
6 the media related to Mintas and this litigation, including specifically communications with the
7 author of the noted Bonus.com article, Devon Jackson. Docket No. 404-2 at 7. ZPPH objected to
8 the subpoena as harassing and seeking irrelevant information. Docket No. 404-6. The ensuing
9 conferral efforts proved unsuccessful. See Docket No. 406-2 at ¶¶ 10-11; Docket Nos. 404-7, 40410 8. On January 15, 2024, Mintas indicated that she would seek the deposition of Attorney Popok.
11 Docket No. 457-1 at ¶ 7.3 PlayUp objected to the deposition and the ensuing conferral efforts
12 proved unsuccessful. Id. at ¶ 10.
13 II.
DISCOVERY MOTIONS STANDARDS
14
A.
15
“The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the
Motion to Compel Non-Party Document Production
16 district court.” Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1219 (9th Cir. 2018). Parties are
17 permitted to subpoena nonparties for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii).
18 When the nonparty objects to the subpoena and conferral efforts are unavailing, the serving party
19 may move to compel compliance with the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i); see also Fed.
20 R. Civ. P. 34(c). The nonparty seeking to avoid discovery bears the burden of persuasion in
21 opposing a motion to compel. See Goodman v. United States, 369 F.2d 166, 169 (9th Cir. 1966).
22
B.
Motion for Protective Order
23
When a party objects to discovery and conferral efforts are unavailing, the objecting party
24 may seek a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The party seeking to avoid discovery bears the
25 burden of showing why that discovery should not be permitted. V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 334
26
27
3
The Court raised concerns regarding the timing of Mintas seeking Attorney Popok’s
deposition. See Docket No. 460. Because Mintas is not entitled to the deposition at any rate, the
28 Court need not rule on the timeliness issue.
3
1 F.R.D. 306, 309 (D. Nev. 2019). The party resisting discovery must specifically detail the reasons
2 why each request is irrelevant or otherwise objectionable, and may not rely on boilerplate,
3 generalized, conclusory, or speculative arguments. F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544,
4 553 (D. Nev. 2013). Arguments against discovery must be supported by “specific examples and
5 articulated reasoning.” E.E.O.C. v. Caesars Ent., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 428, 432 (D. Nev. 2006).
6
C.
Obtaining Deposition Testimony of Opposing Counsel
7
If a party seeks relevant information that is proportional to the needs of the case, the rules
8 provide that a party may depose “any person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). The governing rules
9 articulate no prohibition against deposing opposing counsel. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.
10 Cerf, 177 F.R.D. 472, 478 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court has
11 “alluded to a presumption that trial counsel should not be forced to testify because doing so
12 compromises the standards of the legal profession.” Nocal, Inc. v. Sabercat Ventures, Inc., No. C
13 04–0240 PJH (JL), 2004 WL 3174427, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2004) (discussing Hickman v.
14 Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 513 (1947)).
15
The Eighth Circuit provides the leading case on evaluating the propriety of deposing
16 opposing counsel. In Shelton v. American Motors Corp., the Eighth Circuit recognized that
17 allowing the deposition of opposing counsel “not only disrupts the adversarial system and lowers
18 the standards of the profession, but it also adds to the already burdensome time and costs of
19 litigation.” 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir.1986). Attempting to take the deposition of opposing
20 counsel causes pretrial delays to resolve work-product and attorney-client objections and collateral
21 issues raised by the attorney’s testimony. Id. The practice also “detracts from the quality of client
22 representation” and has a “chilling effect” on attorney-client representations. Id. For these
23 reasons, depositions of opposing counsel should proceed in limited circumstances when: (1) no
24 other means exist to obtain the information sought; (2) the information is both relevant and non25 privileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. Id.
26
Although the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on the issue, other circuits have adopted the
27 Shelton test. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 278 F.3d 621, 628 (6th Cir. 2002);
28 Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1112 & n.15 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Nguyen
4
1 v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200, 209 (5th Cir. 1999) (assuming the applicability of the Shelton test
2 and applying it).4 Judges within this District, including the undersigned, also routinely follow the
3 Eighth Circuit’s approach enunciated in Shelton in addressing attempts to obtain deposition
4 testimony from opposing counsel. See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Terra S. Corp., No. 2:18-cv-006755 KJD-EJY, 2019 WL 5963986, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2019) (collecting cases); see also, e.g.,
6 Couturier v. Am. Invsco Corp., No. 2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK, 2013 WL 4499008, at *3-4 (D.
7 Nev. Aug. 20, 2013). Although not unanimous, applying Shelton in this context is also the majority
8 approach within the Ninth Circuit. See SBP LLLP v. Hoffman Constr. Co. of Am., No. 1:19-cv9 00266-DCN, 2021 WL 3131310, at *4 (D. Id. July 23, 2021); see also Littlefield v. Nutribullet,
10 LLC, No. CV 16-6894 MWF (SSx), 2017 WL 10438897, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) (collecting
11 cases). The Court will continue to follow the majority approach and will apply Shelton to Mintas’
12 request to depose opposing counsel.
13
Hence, the request to depose opposing counsel will be subject to the following standards,
14 succinctly stated. Depositions of opposing counsel are disfavored and should only be permitted in
15 limited circumstances. See Johnson v. Couturier, 261 F.R.D. 188, 193 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also
16 Harter v. CPS Sec. (USA), Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00084-MMD-PAL, 2013 WL 129418, at *8 (D. Nev.
17 Jan. 9, 2013). The party seeking to depose opposing counsel must show that: (1) no other means
18 exist to obtain the information, (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged, and (3)
19 the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. Shelton, 805 F.2d at 1327. In this context,
20 the burden shifts to the party seeking to depose an attorney to demonstrate that such deposition is
21 warranted. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Krieger, 160 F.R.D. 582, 588 (S.D. Cal. 1995);
22 see also Fernandez v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., No. 2:12-cv-00295-JCM-GWF, 2013 WL
23 438669, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2013). This is a “difficult burden” to meet. Ditech Fin. LLC v.
24
25
4
The Second Circuit has expressed a preference for a “more flexible approach to attorney
depositions,” though it did not “rule definitively on the matter” because that appeal was moot. In
26 re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65, 67 (2d Cir. 2003); see also id. at 72 n.4
(explaining that the decision was dicta given mootness of the appeal). While there is some daylight
27 between Shelton and the approach suggested in Friedman, both create a presumption against
depositions of opposing counsel and are only “slightly different.” Monster Energy Co. v. Vital
28 Pharm., Inc., No. 5:18-cv-01882-JGB (SHKx), 2020 WL 2405295, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10,
2020).
5
1 SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-00476-JCM-VCF, 2016 WL 4370034, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug.
2 15, 2016).
3
D.
Obtaining Document-Based Discovery from Opposing Counsel
4
Although the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on the issue, several courts within the Ninth
5 Circuit have applied the Shelton framework to document requests served on opposing counsel.
6 Pizana v. Sanmedica Int’l, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00655-DAD-SKO, 2021 WL 1060440, at *5 n.3
7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2021); Monster Energy, 2020 WL 2405295, at *8-9; Silver v. BA Sports
8 Nutrition, LLC, No. 20-cv-00633-SI, 2020 WL 6342939, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2020); Rygg v.
9 Hulbert, No. C11-1827 JLR, 2013 WL 264762, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 23, 2013); Flotsam of Cal.,
10 Inc. v. Huntington Beach Conf. & Visitors Bureau, No. C 06-7028 MMC (MEJ), 2007 WL
11 4171136, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007); Nocal, 2004 WL 3174427, at *2-4.5 While recognizing
12 that depositions differ from document requests, these courts have explained that discovery sought
13 from opposing counsel is “universally disfavored.” Monster Energy, 2020 WL 2405295, at *9.
14 That disfavor arises from the similar risks of disrupting litigation, detracting from the quality of
15 client representation, and chilling attorney-client representations. See Rygg, 2013 WL 264762, at
16 *1 (explaining that document requests “are just as problematic as the deposition requests, and for
17 the same reasons”). This is the majority approach within the Ninth Circuit.
18
Mintas argues that document-based discovery from opposing counsel is analyzed under the
19 default discovery rules and that no special protection should be afforded to opposing counsel,
20 citing to the decision of a discovery special master. See Docket No. 419 at 11-12 (discussing in
21 re Allergan, Inc. Securities Litig., No. 14-cv-02004-DOC (KES), 2016 WL 5922717, at *3 (C.D.
22 Cal. Sept. 23, 2016)).6 The special master expressed doubt that Shelton applied beyond the context
23 of depositions, noting that some courts have encouraged written discovery as a viable alternative
24
5
Courts from outside the Ninth Circuit have also applied Shelton to requests for documents
25 from opposing counsel. See Allen v. Brown Advisory, LLC, No. 3:20-mc-00008, 2020 WL
5603760, at *2 (W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 2020); XTO Energy, Inc. v. ATD, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-01021,
26 2016 WL 1730171, at *31 (D.N.M. Apr. 1, 2016).
27
6
At least one other decision within the Ninth Circuit has questioned whether Shelton
applies in the document-production context, but that court ultimately declined to resolve the issue.
28 See Wilcox v. Swapp, No. 2:17-cv-275-RMP, 2018 WL 6419295, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 6, 2018).
6
1 to attorney depositions because it “do[es] not involve the same dangers as an oral deposition of
2 opposing counsel.” See id. (quoting Kelling v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 153 F.R.D. 170, 171
3 (D. Kan. 1994)). While the approach taken in Allergan is not an unreasonable one, the Court is
4 more persuaded by the majority approach within the Ninth Circuit concluding that requests for
5 documents from opposing counsel are subject to the Shelton test. The Court will apply Shelton to
6 Mintas’ request for documents from opposing counsel.
7 III.
DISCOVERY MOTIONS ANALYSIS
8
As explained above, the party seeking to depose opposing counsel or obtain document-
9 based discovery from opposing counsel must show that: (1) no other means exist to obtain the
10 information, (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged, and (3) the information is
11 crucial to the preparation of the case. Shelton, 805 F.2d at 1327. Because Mintas fails to satisfy
12 the first and third requirements, the discovery will not be permitted.
13
A.
Relevant and Nonprivileged Nature of the Information
14
The discovery at issue consists of a proposed deposition to obtain testimony from Attorney
15 Popok regarding his contacts with the media, as well as requests for documents from Attorney
16 Popok’s firm regarding contacts with the media. See, e.g., Docket No. 404-2 at 6-8; Docket No.
17 457-1 at ¶ 8. As a threshold matter, the Court agrees with Mintas that this discovery is relevant.
18 See, e.g., Docket No. 406-1 at 11-14. The discovery seeks information regarding Attorney Popok’s
19 statements, allegedly made on behalf of PlayUp, which form part of the basis of Mintas’
20 counterclaims. See Docket No. 336 at ¶¶ 169, 181, 182, 184. The standard for discovery
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
1 “relevance” remains broad in nature, V5 Technologies, 334 F.R.D. at 309, and is met here.7 The
2 Court also agrees with Mintas that attorney communications with the media are not subject to the
3 attorney-client privilege. Cf. Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 133 Nev. 369, 374
4 (2017) (for the attorney-client privilege to apply, “the communications must be between an
5 attorney and client”); see also Docket No. 435 at 8 n.5 (PlayUp indicating that it “is not claiming
6 that the communications sought by the subpoena are privileged”).8
7
B.
No Other Means Exist to Obtain the Information
8
Because the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged, the second requirement of
9 the Shelton test is met here. That is as far as Mintas’ showing goes, though. With respect to the
10 first requirement, Mintas argues that obtaining discovery from opposing counsel is the “only
11 means” to determine what Attorney Popok and ZPPH told the media. Docket No. 419 at 13. The
12 Court disagrees. Mintas forgets an obvious alternative source for this information: the media
13 outlets and reporters who wrote the subject stories. Quite plainly, Attorney Popok was not talking
14 to himself, and Mintas already knows the identity of the media outlet (Bonus.com) and reporter
15 (Devon Jackson) that quoted Attorney Popok. E.g., Docket No. 336 at ¶ 181. Mintas also knows
16 the other publications and authors that have written about her and this case. Compare Docket No.
17 406-1 at 7 with Docket No. 404-2 at 8. Mintas provides no meaningful explanation why this
18
19
7
In arguing against relevance, PlayUp relies on an earlier order denying Mintas’ motion to
disqualify counsel. See, e.g., Docket No. 410 at 8-9. Such reliance is misplaced. That ruling was
20 predicated on a narrow issue: whether Mintas established that Attorney Popok knew or should
have known that his extrajudicial statements would have a substantial likelihood of materially
21 prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Docket No. 289 at 2-3. The Court did not therein opine
on whether Attorney Popok’s communications with the media were defamatory or otherwise
22 actionable, nor whether discovery into the communications was warranted. See id.
23
PlayUp also argues that the discovery is “irrelevant” because Attorney Popok has declared
that there are no additional contacts. See Docket No. 486 at 6. In support of that proposition,
24 PlayUp cites an unpublished district court decision from 2012 that has never been followed. See
id. In this Court’s view, the existence of a contrary declaration does not bear on whether the
25 discovery meets the standard of “relevance.” The Court will discuss the identified declaration,
however, with respect to whether the information sought is crucial to the case.
26
8
PlayUp pivots in briefing the deposition dispute to argue that Mintas failed to show that
27 Popok possesses nonprivileged information. See, e.g., Docket No. 486 at 6-7. The Court need not
get into the weeds on whether some aspects of the deposition might veer into privileged areas,
28 however, because the deposition cannot proceed regardless.
8
1 information could not be obtained from the publications and authors, rather than seeking it from
2 opposing counsel.9 Hence, Mintas fails to establish the first requirement. Cf. Flotsam, 2007 WL
3 4171136, at *1 (noting potential to obtain press-related documents from nonparty news agencies
4 rather than from opposing counsel).
5
C.
The Information is Crucial to the Preparation of the Case
6
In addition to failing to show that no other means exist to obtain this information, Mintas
7 has also not shown that the information is “crucial” to the preparation of the case. Her argument
8 as to the “crucial” nature of the discovery is barebones. See Docket No. 472 at 21-22; see also
9 Docket No. 419 at 13. Mintas has effectively collapsed the analysis of whether the discovery is
10 “crucial” with the distinct question of whether the discovery is “relevant,” but these terms are not
11 synonymous. Ditech, 2016 WL 4370034, at *3. For discovery of opposing counsel to be
12 warranted, the information “must have greater importance to the action than merely being
13 relevant.” Id.; see also FMC Techs., Inc. v. Edwards, No. C05-946C, 2007 WL 836709, at *5
14 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 15, 2007) (explaining that “helpful” deposition testimony is not “crucial”).
15 Information would be crucial if it is “necessary for the survival of a claim or defense.” Hanover
16 Insurance, 2019 WL 5963986, at *8 (citing Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Wells, No. 2:12-cv-0204117 GMN-VCF, 2013 WL 12321555, at *3 (D. Nev. June 17, 2013)).
18
Mintas states in conclusory fashion that the information is necessary to effectively litigate
19 her claims. E.g., Docket No. 472 at 22. Why that is so is not meaningfully explained. Mintas
20 relies on a case in which a showing was made that discovery was needed to oppose summary
21 judgment, see id. at 21-22, but Mintas notably fails to make any similar showing that her ability to
22 prove any particular element of any of her counterclaims hinges on this discovery. To the contrary,
23 Mintas herself notes that her counterclaims only rely “in part” on the allegations involving
24 Attorney Popok, see, e.g., Docket No. 472 at 21, and there are myriad other factual allegations on
25
9
Mintas references that only Attorney Popok and ZPPH know the entire universe of their
26 communications with the media, so she cannot obtain this information from the media. See, e.g.,
Docket No. 472 at 19. Such an assertion is not responsive to the bulk of the discovery in dispute,
27 which seeks communications with specifically identified individuals and media outlets. Moreover,
this argument essentially rehashes Mintas’ contention that she disbelieves Attorney Popok’s
28 declaration as to the limited nature of his media contacts. The Court addresses that issue below.
9
1 which her counterclaims are based. The fact that this information represents a subset of the factual
2 predicate to Mintas’ counterclaims undermines the contention that the information is crucial. In
3 short, while this discovery might be helpful to Mintas in proving her counterclaims, see, e.g.,
4 Docket No. 406-1 at 11-13, she has not shown that it is crucial.
5
The primary gist of Mintas’ argument is that discovery may disprove the attestations made
6 by Attorney Popok that his media contacts have been limited to Devon Jackson. See Docket No.
7 424 at 6; see also Docket No. 457 at 3 n.2. The Court is not persuaded that this is solid ground on
8 which to find the information is crucial. Several courts have concluded that information is not
9 crucial to the preparation of the case when the need for it is predicated on bald suspicions
10 concerning the veracity of an attorney’s earlier attestations in the case. Gilbert v. Money Mut.,
11 LLC, No. 13-cv-01171-JSW (LB), 2016 WL 3196605, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2016) (denying
12 request to depose opposing counsel where the movants’ main argument was that they did not
13 believe opposing counsel’s declaration); see also S.E.C. v. Pulier, No. CV 17-7124 PSG (RAOx),
14 2020 WL 8572081, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020). In this case, Attorney Popok filed a
15 declaration under penalty of perjury that there has been “no other contact with the media” from
16 himself or ZPPH apart from the communications with Devon Jackson related to the Bonus.com
17 article. Docket No. 251 at ¶¶ 29-31. PlayUp also notes that Attorney Popok’s correspondence
18 with Jackson was voluntarily provided earlier in the case. See Docket No. 410 at 3 n.2 (citing
19 Docket No. 255-1). Mintas insinuates that an off-handed reference in the article that Attorney
20 Popok was happy to talk “to anyone who will listen” must mean that he was lying under oath to
21 the Court about having limited media contacts. See, e.g., Docket No. 419 at 10; Docket No. 424
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
1 at 6.10 The Court does not find that this statement, which theoretically suggests additional media
2 contacts, renders it crucial to “test” Attorney Popok’s declaration to the contrary.11
3
For these reasons, Mintas fails to establish the third requirement.
4
D.
5
Mintas has failed to sustain her heavy burden of showing that the deposition and written
Conclusion
6 discovery she seeks from opposing counsel is warranted.
Mintas has not shown that the
7 information cannot be obtained from another source or that it is crucial to the preparation of the
8 case. “Either ground” provides a basis to prohibit this discovery. SBP, 2021 WL 3131310 at *4.
9 Accordingly, Mintas’ motion to compel will be denied and PlayUp’s motion for protective order
10 will be granted.
11 IV.
PLAYUP’S COUNTERMOTION FOR MONETARY RELIEF
12
In responding to the motion to compel the production of documents, PlayUp filed a
13 countermotion for an award of expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
14 Procedure and for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Docket No. 414 at 19-22. The Court
15 is not persuaded on either front.12
16
A.
Rule 37(a)(5)(B)
17
A pillar of federal litigation is that discovery should proceed with minimal involvement of
18 the Court. Cardoza v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015) (quoting
19
10
Mintas has not identified any discovery obtained from this particular reporter as to what
20 prompted this statement to be written.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11
Mintas alludes to the potential that this discovery from opposing counsel might
theoretically reveal additional fact witnesses. See Docket No. 472 at 22. Such conclusory
speculation is unpersuasive, particularly given the declaration to the contrary. At any rate, this
argument does not make sense given the procedural posture of the case, in which discovery is
generally closed. Docket No. 496 at 4. Discovery is meant to be a frontloaded process and not
one involving deadline brinksmanship. V5 Techs. v. Switch, Ltd., 332 F.R.D. 356, 363 (D. Nev.
2019) (quoting Haviland v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa, Corp., 692 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1044
(S.D. Iowa 2010)). Foundational discovery (like identifying fact witnesses) should not take place
in the twilight of the discovery period. Cf. U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc., No. 2:11-cv01588-LRH-GWF, 2014 WL 5045109, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 9, 2014) (declining to compel discovery
that would be used for follow-on discovery efforts given procedural posture).
12
Mintas requests an award of expenses in relation to her motion to compel. Docket No.
406-1 at 14. Because Mintas lost that motion, she is not entitled to an award of expenses. See
28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
11
1 F.D.I.C. v. Butcher, 116 F.R.D. 196, 203 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)). Instead of forcing judicial oversight
2 of every dispute, attorneys are expected to approach discovery with an eye toward cooperation,
3 practicality, and sensibility. In re Convergent Techs. Securities Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328, 331 (N.D.
4 Cal. 1985). “The governing rules reflect this in several ways, including providing a presumption
5 that reasonable expenses—including attorneys’ fees—will be awarded to the party that prevails on
6 a discovery motion.” Big City Dynasty v. FP Holdings, L.P., 336 F.R.D. 507, 513 (D. Nev. 2020)
7 (citing Rickels v. City of S. Bend, Ind., 33 F.3d 785, 786-87 (7th Cir. 1994)). Hence, when a motion
8 to compel has been denied, the Court “must” generally award expenses to the party that
9 successfully opposed the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).
10
The losing party may rebut the presumption of an award of expenses by establishing that
11 her position was “substantially justified.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B). A position is substantially
12 justified when “the parties had a genuine dispute on matters on which reasonable people could
13 differ as to the appropriate outcome.” Roberts v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 312 F.R.D. 594, 609 (D.
14 Nev. 2016) (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). The party facing an award
15 of expenses bears the burden of establishing substantial justification. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC
16 v. Flamingo Trails No. 7 Landscape Maintenance Assoc., 316 F.R.D. 327, 335 (D. Nev. 2016).
17 District courts have “great latitude” in awarding expenses under Rule 37. Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754
18 F.2d 1420, 1425 (9th Cir. 1985).
19
The Court agrees with Mintas that an award of expenses is not warranted here. As
20 discussed above, the requests for documents from Attorney Popok’s firm fall within the broad
21 scope of relevant discovery in light of Mintas’ allegations that Attorney Popok defamed her in
22 media communications. Docket No. 336 at ¶¶ 169, 181, 182, 184. Moreover, Mintas cited some
23 authority casting doubt that the Shelton analysis applies to document-based discovery. See
24 Allergan, 2016 WL 5922717, at *3. Although it ultimately turned out to be a loser, Mintas’ motion
25 to compel the production of documents was substantially justified.
26
B.
28 U.S.C. § 1927
27
“Any attorney ... who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
28 vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and
12
1 attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. An award of
2 sanctions under Section 1927 requires a showing of recklessness or bad faith. B.K.B. v. Maui
3 Police Dept., 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002) (reconciling case law).
4
The Court is not persuaded that such sanctions are warranted here. As noted above, the
5 discovery at issue in the motion compel is relevant and Mintas’ motion was substantially
6 justified.13 This request for sanctions appears predicated mostly on the assertion that Mintas is
7 harassing PlayUp by relitigating the earlier denial of her motion to disqualify counsel. See, e.g.,
8 Docket No. 414 at 20-21; Docket No. 435 at 2-3. As already explained, that ruling addressed a
9 narrow issue:
whether Attorney Popok knew or should have known that his extrajudicial
10 statements would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative
11 proceeding. Docket No. 289 at 2-3. The Court did not therein opine on whether Attorney Popok’s
12 communications with the media were defamatory or otherwise actionable, nor whether Attorney
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
13
The parties dispute the statement that Attorney Popok contacted the media repeatedly,
25 which Mintas’ counsel later changed through an errata to indicate that he repeatedly communicated
with the media. See, e.g., Docket No. 435 at 11. To be perfectly clear, Attorney Popok’s version
26 of events is that he had at least three communications with reporter Devon Jackson. See, e.g.,
Docket No. 410 at 6 (noting an “initial call” that was tabled, a second interaction in which Jackson
27 “spoke to Popok again,” and an email from Attorney Popok regarding a statement in the story that
was published). That Mintas’ counsel initially described these circumstances as “PlayUp’s counsel
28 [having] repeatedly reached out to the media,” Docket No. 404 at 4, is not sanctionable conduct.
13
1 Popok’s communications with the media were discoverable.14 In short, PlayUp has not shown that
2 Mintas unreasonably or vexatiously multiplied proceedings.
3 V.
CONCLUSION
4
For the reasons discussed above, Mintas’ motion to compel (Docket No. 404) is DENIED,
5 PlayUp’s motion for protective order (Docket No. 457) is GRANTED, and PlayUp’s motion for
6 sanctions (Docket No. 414) is DENIED.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated: March 25, 2024
______________________________
Nancy J. Koppe
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
14
The briefing includes ubiquitous accusations from PlayUp that Mintas is not engaging
16 in discovery cooperatively and that she provides over-aggressive argument, but that is by no means
a one-sided problem. By way of an obvious example of the latter, PlayUp repeatedly exaggerates
17 the scope and meaning of the order denying the motion to disqualify. See, e.g., Docket No. 410 at
7 (“the Court expressly held that the [Popok] has not breached any rule of professional conduct
18 since taking over as lead trial counsel”); Docket No. 435 at 3 (“this Court found that Mr. Popok’s
communications with the reporter were not improper”). Such grand pronouncements are plainly
19 absent from the subject order. See Docket No. 289 at 2-3.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Moreover, the parties engaged in full motion practice on a discovery dispute over these
documents, along with full motion practice on a countermotion for sanctions, all while PlayUp is
contending that there are no undisclosed contacts or documents. See Docket No. 410 at 3 n.2.
“Despite that,” PlayUp felt “compelled” to engage in lengthy motion practice because of what it
viewed as Mintas’ improper conduct. Id. Neither discovery nor discovery motion practice is
meant to proceed in tit-for-tat fashion. National Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., Inc. v. On Point
Events, LP, 256 F.R.D. 678, 680-81 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (collecting cases). As alluded to by Mintas,
see Docket No. 419 at 10 n.4, one must wonder if the spirit of discovery cooperation would have
been better advanced by PlayUp noting its objections to the subpoena for documents, and then
certifying that no responsive documents exist other than the one already filed on the docket.
Lastly, it is important to recognize that there is a published article indicating that Attorney
26 Popok made a number of statements to Devon Jackson, including allegedly saying Mintas had
been telling “lies.” Docket No. 404-4 at 6. As a result, Attorney Popok’s conduct is specifically
27 identified in Mintas’ operative pleading. E.g., Docket No. 336 at ¶ 181. While the Court ultimately
denies her attempts to obtain the disputed discovery, the suggestion that Mintas is seeking this
28 discovery only as a means to harass PlayUp is not substantiated.
14
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?