Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05057/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05057-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Big Sky Entertainment Corp., a California

corporation,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

City of Mountain View, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

NO. C 03-05057 JW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

In June of 2005, Defendants filed a motion to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s designated

accounting expert, Stephen Reiss. Defendants’ motion was based on two grounds: (1) Plaintiff had

failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P., by failing to disclose the existence of a

QuickBooks disk that contained accounting information that differed from the accounting records

provided to Defendants and from the data attached to Mr. Reiss’s report; and (2) Mr. Reiss’s

opinions, which were based on the QuickBooks disk, were not based on Generally Accepted

Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).

By order dated August 17, 2005, the Court granted the motion because Mr. Reiss based his

proposed testimony on records that were not created in accordance with GAAP. Further, the Court

invited Defendants “to seek sanctions accordingly and request costs stemming from Defendants’

preparation of their Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony . . .” Corrected Order Granting

Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony.

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for sanctions, filed December 28, 2005. 

The Court finds it appropriate to take the motion under submission for decision without oral

Case 5:03-cv-05057-JW Document 210 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Based upon all papers filed to date, the Court grants

in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for sanctions.

Defendants’ motion is based upon nine separate alleged violations of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, which can be generally classified as follows: (1) failing to disclose the existence of

the QuickBooks disk in a timely manner; (2) allowing Plaintiff’s expert to rely on the QuickBooks

disk; and (3) providing four different versions of net profits to Defendants during discovery. 

Defendants seek a total of $31,574.71 “to make them whole for the costs and fees they incurred

related to plaintiffs’ expert, Stephen Reiss.” 

Plaintiff raises numerous arguments against the imposition of sanctions, chief of which is

that it complied, in good faith, with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the

Court finds that sanctions are appropriate, Plaintiff requests that the sanctions not exceed $1,000, or

alternatively, that the Court defer imposing sanctions until after trial.

Having reviewed each of the parties’ briefs, the Court remains persuaded that sanctions are

appropriate because Plaintiff proffered an expert, Mr. Reiss, who based his proposed testimony on

records that were not created in accordance with GAAP. See August 17, 2005 Order. In doing so,

Plaintiff proffered a seriously misleading, if not outright false, expert disclosure, which is

sanctionable pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P..

Defendants’ present motion for sanctions in the amount of $31,574.71, however, far exceeds

what the Court had contemplated in its August 17, 2005 Order, namely only those sanctions and

costs stemming from Defendants’ preparation of their Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony. The

requests for $14,055 for sixty hours of expert time, $81.68 in additional expert costs, and $530.53 in

court reporter fees, are accordingly denied.

The remaining request for $16,907.50 for approximately 74 hours of attorney time is also

excessive for the preparation of Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony. The most the

Court is prepared to award is attorneys fees for an 8-hour work day, at a rate of $175/hour, for a total

of $1,400.

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P., Defendants’ motion for sanctions is granted

Case 5:03-cv-05057-JW Document 210 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall pay sanctions in the total amount of $1,400. Because the

sanction is relatively small, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to delay imposition of the sanction

and orders Plaintiff to pay the sanction no later than May 1, 2006.

Dated: March 16, 2006

03cv5057sanctions

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05057-JW Document 210 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Eric J Sidebotham eric.sidebotham@ejs-law.com

Louis A. Leone lleone@stubbsleone.com

Patricia De Fonte Patricia.DeFonte@ibslaw.com

Dated: March 16, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-05057-JW Document 210 Filed 03/16/06 Page 4 of 4