3M Company v. AIME LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 23, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01096
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 3M COMPANY, 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01096-TL 10 v. ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS ON DEFENDANTS’ 11 AIME LLC, et al., COUNSEL FOR DISCOVERY ABUSES 12 Defendants.

13 The Court ordered defendants’ counsel—lead counsel, Florida attorney R. Gale Porter 14 appearing pro hac vice, and local counsel Richard D. Ross—to show cause by November 17, 15 2022, why monetary sanctions should not be imposed in the amount of $7,950 for the time 16 expended by 3M’s counsel in drafting letters, conferring with opposing counsel, and preparing a 17 motion to compel that was granted in full. Dkt. 62. Defendants’ counsel missed the deadline, 18 instead filing a show-cause response a day late at 10:29 p.m. on November 18, 2022. Dt. 64. 19 None of the reasons stated by defendants’ counsel justify their discovery abuses or excuse their 20 filing a response to a motion to compel a week late and a response to the order to show cause a 21 day late without seeking extensions of time. 22 Defendants’ counsel contends that monetary sanctions should not be imposed because: 23 (1) Florida counsel Mr. Porter meant to file a response on-time but filed a week late due to a 1 miscommunication with local counsel Mr. Ross; (2) Mr. Porter had informed plaintiff’s counsel 2 that he intended to withdraw as counsel if the case did not settle at mediation and new counsel 3 will soon take his place; (3) Mr. Porter thought the motion to compel was unnecessary because 4 he was complying with all reasonable requests; and (4) the reasons Mr. Porter stated in his

5 stricken opposition to the motion to compel were valid, such as, in response to the request for 6 documents related to any bankruptcy defendants were involved in, “there is authority for the 7 proposition that records that [are] ‘publicly available’ and ‘equally available to the parties’ do 8 not need to be produced.” Dkt. 64, at 7; see generally Dkts. 64, 65. First, the obligation of 9 defendants’ counsel to meet professional standards and court-ordered deadlines is not excused by 10 poor communication between local counsel and Florida counsel. Moreover, Mr. Porter admits 11 that he sent his first draft of an opposition brief to Mr. Ross a day after it was already due. Dkt. 12 64, at 3. Second, it matters not that defendants’ counsel will be withdrawing in the future, only 13 that they remain defendants’ counsel at the present time. Third, although Mr. Porter thought that 14 any discovery issues had been resolved, this was clearly not the view of plaintiff, and

15 defendants’ counsel was obligated to respond to the motion to compel or concede that it had 16 merit. Fourth, the Court has already rejected defendants’ counsel’s argumentation and further 17 notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 does not excuse defendants from providing 18 documents in their possession or control, solely because the information is also publicly 19 available. See, e.g., Telecommunication Systems, Inc. v. Houserman, 2020 WL 5500372, at *4 20 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2020); Regal Elecs, Inc. v. Pulse Eng'g, Inc., 2005 WL 3078983, at *3 21 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2005). The Court has already admonished defendants’ counsel for earlier 22 discovery abuses and warned that monetary sanctions could follow further discovery 23 transgressions. Dkt. 55. Moreover, it is unpersuasive for defendants’ counsel to argue that they 1 should be excused for filing even their response to the show-cause order late because they 2 misread the deadline and presumed that a show-cause order would not require them to respond 3 within two days. Dkt. 64, at 2–3. Counsel is required to read orders carefully and meet court- 4 ordered deadlines. Additionally, though the Court required a two-day response to the show-cause

5 order, defendants’ counsel were put on notice of a request for monetary sanctions against them 6 when plaintiff’s motion to compel was filed on October 21, 2022, but failed to respond to that 7 request in their late-filed opposition brief. See Dkt. 56, at 11. That is, the Court was extending 8 defendants’ counsel an additional opportunity to be heard prior to levying sanctions already 9 requested in plaintiff’s motion. See generally FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1). 10 The Court finds that monetary sanctions imposed upon defendants’ counsel Mr. Porter 11 and Mr. Ross are justified by their untimely and unsupported opposition to plaintiff 3M’s 12 straightforward and reasonable discovery requests. Dkts. 56, 58. Plaintiff 3M’s counsel seeks 13 $7,950 for time spent on trying to secure the information and documents that were the subject of 14 the motion to compel: lead counsel’s time of 2 hours at $350 per hour and senior counsel’s time

15 of 29 hours at $250 per hour. Dkt. 59, at 2–3. The Court finds that 3M’s counsel has stated a 16 reasonable amount of time expended and hourly rate for attorney fees. See Jordan v. Multnomah 17 County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987); TVI, Inc. v. Harmony Enterprises, Inc., 2019 WL 18 5213247, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2019) (“The Court has previously approved hourly rates of 19 $350 per hour for partners, $250 per hour for associates . . . .”). None of this time was 20 “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S., 434 (1983). 21 Defendants’ counsel R. Gale Porter and Richard D. Ross are ORDERED to pay a 22 monetary sanction of $7,950 for the reasonable attorney fees needlessly incurred by plaintiff as 23 the result of discovery abuses by defendants’ counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A); LCR 11(c). 1 Mr. Porter and Mr. Ross are ordered to pay the sanction to 3M by December 5, 2022. 2 DATED this 23rd day of November, 2022. 3 A 4 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23