Meyer Corporation U.S. v. Alfay Designs, Inc. et al

Filing 61

AMENDED ORDER denying 51 motion to set aside sanction award imposed by Magistrate Judge Go. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 2/2/2012. (Turner-Dodge, Lee)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x
MEYER CORPORATION U.S.,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AMENDED MEMORANDUM
& ORDER
10-CV-3647 (CBA) (MDG)

Plaintiff,
-againstALFAY DESIGNS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------x
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:

Before the Court is Plaintiff Meyer Corporation’s appeal of a $2500 sanction award
imposed by Magistrate Judge Go at a hearing on October 20, 2011, as memorialized in a Minute
Order dated October 27, 2011. (DE #50.) Plaintiff also appealed certain discovery rulings made
by Magistrate Judge Go at the same hearing. At oral argument on January 20, 2011, the Court
rejected plaintiff’s challenges to Magistrate Judge Go’s discovery rulings. The Court also denied
plaintiff’s unsupported motion to withdraw the reference of this case to Magistrate Judge Go.
For the following reasons, the Court, having given due consideration to plaintiff’s motion to set
aside the sanction awards, now denies that motion.
Magistrate Judge Go sanctioned plaintiff pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of
Procedure, which provides for the imposition of sanctions, including costs and attorney fees, for
various discovery violations. “Monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 for noncompliance with
discovery orders usually are committed to the discretion of the magistrate, reviewable by the
district court under the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard.” Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v.
Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990); see Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78, 88 (2d
Cir. 2010) (same). Magistrate judges are afforded “broad discretion” in determining whether
discovery sanctions are appropriate. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 669 F. Supp. 2d 279, 283-84
1

(“Because [plaintiff’s] appeal addresses a discovery sanctions issue, the Court applies a
deferential standard of review.”).
The sanction award at issue was imposed during a hearing on defendants’ motion to
compel plaintiff to respond to certain discovery requests. After granting defendants’ motion in
many respects and ordering plaintiff to provide additional discovery, Magistrate Judge Go
determined that a sanction award was justified because “some of the discovery requests that
[were] the subject of defendants’ current motion to compel were previously addressed by this
Court and plaintiff was ordered to respond.” (DE #50 at 3.) For example, at an earlier hearing
on July 29, 2011, Judge Go ordered plaintiff to produce billing invoices to support its claim for
damages of approximately $2.2 million in legal fees and $400,000 in expenses incurred in
connection with underlying litigations in California and New York. (DE#51-2 at 38-40.) Nearly
three months later, at the October 20th hearing, defense counsel reported that he had “yet to see”
a bill or invoice of these legal fees or expenses. (DE#51-9 at 25.) The Court ordered the
plaintiff to provide an itemization all expenses claimed as quickly as possible, noting that
plaintiff “should have done that quite some time ago.” (Id. at 27.) In addition, the Court
expressed frustration at the October 20th hearing that plaintiff articulated for the first time an
objection to the scope of Defendants’ Interrogatories 4 and 5, noting that such an objection
should have been raised “conferences ago” when those same discovery requests were addressed
by the Court and plaintiff agreed to respond. (DE # 51-9 at 16.)
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Go’s decision to
impose a modest sanction award of $2500 against plaintiff was not clearly erroneous. 1 Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court’s direct order to produce certain documents. Moreover,

1

Plaintiff does not contest the amount of the award as excessive, but contests only the Magistrate Judge’s decision
to impose any award at all.

2

Magistrate Judge Go’s comments on the record at the October 20th hearing demonstrate that she
also believed plaintiff counsel failed to reasonably interpret defendants’ discovery requests and
failed to adequately supplement its responses to other discovery requests. Magistrate Judge Go
was understandably frustrated at having to address the same discovery issues twice and it was
well within her discretion to require plaintiff to reimburse defendants for at least some of the cost
associated with bringing a second motion to compel plaintiff to respond to the same discovery
request already addressed by the Court. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to set aside the sanction
award is denied.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 2, 2012
/s/
Carol Bagley Amon
Chief United States District Judge

3