Federal Judiciary

Defendant Sanctioned for Failure to Comply With Discovery Obligations; No Fees to Plaintiff Due to Failure to Comply With Meet and Confer Rules

By Michael C. Smith

Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Asus Computer Int'l, 2009 WL 153161(E.D.Tex. Jan 21, 2009) (NO. 2:06-CV-348)
Judge: Chad Everingham
Holding:  Motions to Compel GRANTED
Judge Everingham noted that prior to the claim construction hearing in this case, the parties filed eight discovery motions. "That conduct is indicative of the manner in which this case has proceeded since before the initial scheduling conference," he wrote.  "Most, if not all, of these motions should not have been necessary, and these disputes are indicative of a reckless disregard of the discovery obligations and the rules of practice applicable in this court. This order resolves the discovery disputes and imposes sanctions on the Asus defendants for the reasons expressed herein."
The motions at issue were actually directed at all parties - the ones against the plaintiff were resolved by separate orders, and the ones against the Quanta defendants were either worked out by agreement, or the defendants were ordered to respond by a specified time.  However Asus was not so lucky. Judge Everingham not only ordered it to respond to the discovery requests - he sanctioned it for not complying in good faith with its discovery obligations by reducing by one half its time for opening and closing arguments and voir dire, and eliminated one of its peremptory challenges.  The basis for the sanctions was the defendant's failure to produce relevant documents, assertion of numerous improper objections, improper reliance on Rule 33(d), and failure to meet and confer in good faith to resolve discovery matters. 
The Court's order underscored the importance of the meet and confer obligation in the local rules, however, noting that "[a]s a part of the sanction, the undersigned also considered awarding the plaintiff all attorneys fees and costs incurred in presenting the motion to compel and defending against the motion for protection. Ordinarily, those fees should be recoverable.  However, those fees and costs are not awarded in this case because the record indicates that the plaintiff, through its counsel, was also guilty of failing to meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the disputes.  That failure to meet and confer in good faith violates the local rules of practice in this court, and the penalty is the loss of any award of fees and costs."  (Emphasis added).

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on January 26, 2009 (boomark / email).