Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00719/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00719-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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

07cv719 MMA (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENEE CESAR VILCHES MORA,

OKECHUKWU MBAMA, and JASON VAN

HORN, individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota

corporation, and DOES 1 through 125,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv719 MMA (WMc)

Case No. 08cv513 MMA (WMc)

Case No. 08cv1787 MMA (WMc)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTIVE

ORDER [ DOC. NO. 113.]

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO LIFT

PROTECTIVE ORDER [DOC. NO. 117]

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S

REPLY [DOC. NO. 123]; and

(4) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST

RICHARD QUINTILONE, ESQ.

On November 17, 2010, the Court held oral argument in the above-entitled case. Richard

Quintilone, Esq., appeared for Plaintiff Jason Van Horn. Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq., appeared for

Defendant Target Corporation. The hearing was placed on the record. Accordingly, all oral

rulings made at the November 17, 2010 hearing are hereby incorporated fully herein.

In addition, after hearing from counsel of record, the Court herein addresses one remaining

issue: whether the Court should impose a monetary sanction against Plaintiffs’ counsel in favor of

Defendant Target pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). Mr. Quintilone represents plaintiffs in a class

action currently pending in the Central District of California entitled Diaz v. Target,10-cv-1103 AG

Case 3:07-cv-00719-MMA-WMC Document 127 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 4
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 07cv719 MMA (WMc)

(“Central District Action”). In the Central District Action, Mr. Quintilone used an expert report

obtained in the instant case which used and relied upon confidential information the Mora plaintiffs

received from defendant Target under a Protective Order in Mora. Target contends Mr. Quintilone’s

use of that expert report violated the Protective Order in Mora. Target requests sanctions in the form

of attorney fees of approximately $25,000.

Rule 37(b) authorizes a district court to impose a wide range of sanctions if a party fails to

comply with a discovery order, including a protective order. U.S. v. Nat'l Med. Enters., Inc., 792

F.2d 906, 910 (9th Cir. 1986). A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to impose

sanctions pursuant to Rule 37. Lew v. Kona Hosp., 754 F.2d 1420, 1425-26 (9th Cir. 1985). Local

rule 83.1 states in pertinent part: “[F]ailure of counsel or any party to comply with these Rules, with

the Federal Rules of Civil...Procedure may be grounds for imposition by the court, of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the court, including, without

limitation, dismissal of any action, entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary

sanctions or attorney’s fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions.” Obviously, under the statute

sanctions do not have to take the form of an award of attorneys fees to the non-offending attorney.

Rather, monetary sanctions can be issued separate and apart from attorneys’ fees. When a monetary

sanction is appropriate, the amount of the sanction award must be reasonable. Matter of Yagman,

796 F.2d 1165, 1184 (9th Cir. 1986). The Court must make some evaluation of the fee breakdown

submitted by counsel to determine not the actual fees and expenses incurred, but what amount of

fees and expenses are reasonable. Id. at 1185. Additionally, the Court should consider the

sanctioned party's ability to pay to determine the award's reasonableness. Id. However, the

sanctioned party has the burden to produce evidence of inability to pay. Gaskell v. Weir, 10 F.3d

626, 629 (9th Cir. 1993). Failure to present such evidence or raise the issue waives the sanctioned

party's argument regarding inability to pay. Fed. Election Comm'n v. Toledano, 317 F.3d 939, 949

(9th Cir. 2002). 

This Court finds some type of monetary sanction is appropriate for several reasons. First,

Mr. Quintilone clearly disobeyed the Protective Order. He wrongfully used in the Central District

Action the confidential information Target produced in Mora pursuant to a Protective Order. Mr.

Case 3:07-cv-00719-MMA-WMC Document 127 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 4
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

1

 Under Fed. R.Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) attorneys fees are considered “expenses”.

3 07cv719 MMA (WMc)

Quintilone used in the Central District Action the same expert report he used in Mora which used

and relied upon the confidential information Target produced in Mora pursuant to the Protective

Order. Such usage violated the Mora Protective Order. Second, Mr. Quintilone did not have to

violate the Mora Protective Order. He could have obtained the materials he needed in the Central

District Action. Indeed, he did obtain the underlying material in the Central District Action.

Unfortunately, Mr. Quintilone did not use that material appropriately or in a timely manner. Mr.

Quintilone could have asked the court in the Central District Action for additional time to prepare

a new expert report incorporating the new material obtained from Target. Or, he could have sought

relief from this court for permission to use the same expert report relying upon the confidential

information from Mora before he actually used or filed that expert report in the Central District

Action. These are just two of the alternatives available to Mr. Quintilone, which he failed to pursue.

Additional alternatives existed.

On November 17, 2010, Plaintiffs' attorney Richard Quintilone represented to the Court on

the record in open court that he (1) has only $6,000 in his bank account, (2) is two months behind

on his rent and/or mortgage payments, and (3) was unable to pay an employee, causing her to quit.

Accordingly, it is appropriate for this Court to consider Mr. Quintilone's financial situation in

determining an appropriate monetary sanction. 

The court is influenced by some additional factors. First, Mr. Quintilone was contrite before

the Court and made his arguments in a professional and respectful manner. Second, the Court’s

ruling on November 17, 2010 may have a substantial financial impact on Mr. Quintilone. Thus,

there is less of a need for an additional, onerous financial penalty for Mr. Quintilone’s failure to

comply with the Protective Order in Mora. Third, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(b)(2)(C) the Court has authority to decline to award attorneys fees if “circumstances make an

award of expenses1

 unjust.” Such is the instant case. After taking into consideration the Court’s

November 17, 2010 ruling and Mr. Quintilone’s financial condition, the Court exercises its 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00719-MMA-WMC Document 127 Filed 11/22/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4 07cv719 MMA (WMc)

discretion to impose a monetary sanction; however, that sanction will not be in the form of

attorney fees. The Court imposes a monetary sanction in the amount of $500 to be paid by Mr.

Quintilone to Target on or before December 10, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2010

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00719-MMA-WMC Document 127 Filed 11/22/10 Page 4 of 4