Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd. et al

Filing 197

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 191 Motion to Strike Document No. 189 .There has been a serious breakdown in the discovery process in this case, as evidenced by the multitude of discovery motions filed. Indeed, between September 20, 2013, and October 17, 2013, the parties have filed five such motions, including the motion to strike, and counsel for the defendants have indicated that another one is on its way. Counsel should know that this is an unsuitable manner in which to conduct litigation. S ee, e.g., Family Dollar Stores, Inc. v. United Fabrics International, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2574, 2012 WL 1123736, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. April 4, 2012) (admonishing counsel for failure to cooperate in discovery). The defendants' motion to strike (Docket no. 191) is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 10/22/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb) Modified on 10/22/2013 (lmb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:
IN RE WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL
:
SECURITIES LITIGATION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:
JAMES C. FRANCIS IV
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 Civ. 1646 (LAK) (JCF)
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

On October 10, 2013, contemplating the filing of yet another
discovery motion in this case, the plaintiffs sought from the
Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, U.S.D.J., a dispensation from his
individual rules limiting the number of pages in a discovery motion
to four.

(Letter of Ramzi Abadou dated October 10, 2013, attached

as Exh. 1 to Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their
Cross-Motion to Strike Exhibits A & B to Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel Documents Withheld as Privileged and/or Work Product (“Def.
Strike Memo.”)). On October 15, 2013, before Judge Kaplan ruled on
that

request,

the

plaintiffs

filed

a

motion

to

compel

the

defendants to produce certain documents that had been withheld as
privileged or protected by work product immunity.

(Motion to

Compel Documents Withheld as Privileged and/or Work Product (“Pl.
Motion to Compel”)).

The motion comprised four pages of argument

along with 12 exhibits.

The first two exhibits -- together, four

1

pages in length -- are tables explaining why the relevant documents
are not privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, and
include citations to the record, as well as one case citation.
(Exhs. A & B, attached to Pl. Motion to Compel).
On October 16, 2013, Judge Kaplan referred the motion to
compel, as well as two other outstanding discovery motions and all
subsequent discovery motions (which are, distressingly, all too
likely) to me.

(Order of Reference dated Oct. 16, 2013).

On

October 17, 2013, the defendants filed this motion to strike, which
contends that the first two exhibits to the motion to compel “are
not exhibits at all; they contain four pages of charts with singlespaced legal and factual arguments in further support of [the]
[p]laintiffs’ [m]otion, effectively doubling the number of pages
permitted by the Court.”

(Def. Strike Memo. at 2).

On that same

date, the defendants filed their opposition to the motion to
compel, which consists of six pages of argument.

(Defendants’

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents Withheld as
Privileged and/or Work Product).
The motion to strike is frivolous, at best.

Whether or not

the plaintiffs’ motion to compel violated Judge Kaplan’s individual
rules is no longer relevant.

The motion is before me now, and my

individual rules do not impose a four-page limit, a fact that the
defendants obviously recognize, as their opposition to the motion
2

to compel runs to six pages. 1
There has been a serious breakdown in the discovery process in
this

case,

filed.

as

evidenced by the multitude of

discovery motions

Indeed, between September 20, 2013, and October 17, 2013,

the parties have filed five such motions, including the motion to
strike, and counsel for the defendants have indicated that another
one is on its way.

Counsel should know that this is an unsuitable

manner in which to conduct
Stores,

Inc.

v.

tigation.

See,

e.g.,

United Fabrics International,

Inc.,

2574, 2012 WL 1123736, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. April 4, 2012)
counsel for

lure to cooperate in discovery).

Family Dollar
No.

11 Civ.

(admonishing

The defendants'

motion to strike (Docket no. 191) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

~

C'~t<1~. .

JAMES C. FRANCIS IV
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated:

New York, New York
October 22, 2013

Had Judge Kaplan not referred the motion to compel to me for
resolution, the defendants' motion to strike may have been proper,
but I express no opinion on whether it would have been advisable.
The motion to strike is neither appropriate nor advisable in this
circumstance.
3

Copies mailed this date to:

Jala Amsellen, Esq.

Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.

Michael Goldberg, Esq.

Robert V. Prongay, Esq.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP

1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Howard G. Smith, Esq.

Smith & Smith

3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112

Bensalem, PA 19020

Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.

Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP

16 west 46th Street, Seventh Floor

New York, New York 10036

i R. Greenstein, Esq.
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
One Sansome St., Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
David R. Scott, Esq.
Scott & Scott LLC
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, Ct 06415
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
Scott & Scott LLC
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101

4

Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, New York 11747
Robert J. Malionek, Esq.
Sarah A. Greenfield, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, New York 10022
Kevin H. Metz, Esq
Latham & Watkins LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Peter A. Wald, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111

5