PATEL et al v. HAVANA BAR, RESTAURANT AND CATERING et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT THE DEFTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. #23) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OULTINED HEREIN. PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. #25) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HE REIN. THE DISCOVERY DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE 1/31/2011 STIPULATED ORDER (DOC. #28) ARE VACATED. NEW SCHEDULING DEADLINES ARE AS FOLLOWS IN THIS ORDER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 12/2/2011. 12/5/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(tomg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
YOGESH PATEL et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
HAVANA BAR, RESTAURANT
:
AND CATERING
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 10-1383

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2011, upon consideration of Defendants’ “Motion
for Sanctions” (Doc. No. 23), the responses and supplements thereto, Plaintiff’s “Cross-Motion
for Sanctions” (Doc. No. 25), the responses and supplements thereto, after a sanctions hearing
held on February 22, 2011, and for reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it
is hereby ORDERED that:
-

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
-

Defendants’ requests for the following sanctions are GRANTED, as follows:
-

An adverse inference instruction regarding the spoliation of the 2008
witness statements will be given at trial;

-

The following witnesses may be re-deposed at cost to Plaintiff: Mukti
Patel, Anish Shah, Raman Nijhawan, Shaheen Nijhawan, and Umar
Anjum. Plaintiff shall pay for the court reporter, and upon completion of
the depositions, Defendants shall submit to the Court a reasonable request
for attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of these re-depositions;

-

Defendants are awarded attorneys’ fees and costs for the time and effort
expended to obtain discovery regarding the 2008 witness statements and
any fees or costs related to the belated production of the 2010 statements
and the police report, including the sanctions hearing and motions practice
before this Court.1

-

Defendants’ remaining requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
-

Plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference instruction regarding the spoliation of
the video recording is GRANTED.

-

Plaintiff’s remaining requests for sanctions are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery deadlines set forth in the January 31,
2011 Stipulated Order (Doc. No. 28) are vacated. A new scheduling order is implemented as
follows:
-

Counsel are directed to contact Magistrate Judge L. Felipe Restrepo’s chambers
on or before December 19, 2011 to schedule a settlement conference.

-

All fact discovery shall be completed by January 16, 2012.

-

Plaintiffs shall produce their expert reports by February 13, 2012. Defendants
shall produce their expert reports by March 5, 2012. Plaintiff’s expert witness

1

We note that Defendants have submitted an itemization of fees detailing their efforts,
which totals $20,816.00. While the fees and times indicated by Defendants appear to be
reasonable, we are unprepared to grant Defendants’ request until Plaintiff has an opportunity to
review the billing statement. Therefore, within 10 days of this Order, Defendants are directed to
produce to Plaintiff their itemization of fees, redacting any information they deem to be
privileged. Within 10 days of receipt of Defendants’ fees, Plaintiff shall advise the Court of any
objections, and, if necessary, a hearing will be scheduled.

rebuttal reports (if necessary) shall be produced by March 19, 2012. All expert
discovery, including all depositions of expert witnesses, shall be completed by
April 9, 2012.
-

Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay witnesses pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with respect to the issues of liability and/or
damages shall, within the time required for the submission of expert discovery set
forth above, serve opposing parties with concise details and/or documents
covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses, including the identity of each
witness offering the lay opinion, the substance and the basis for each opinion.

-

All motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions shall be filed no later
than April 30, 2012.

-

Responses to motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions, if any, shall
be filed no later than May 28, 2012.

-

All further deadlines will be set pending the outcome of dispositive motions.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
____________________________
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.