Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02537/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02537-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donald Chapman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service; National

Postal Mail Handlers Union,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-2537 PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court has held a number of discovery conference calls in this case. Calls have

been placed when counsel for plaintiff, William R. Hobson, and counsel for Defendant

John E. Potter, Harriet M. Bernick, have disagreed. The parties placed a conference call to

the Court on October 12, 2005, concerning objections, instructions, and other comments

made by Ms. Bernick during a deposition. As a result of this call, the Court entered an

Order setting forth fundamental deposition rules that should already be known and

practiced, including that lawyers should state the legal basis for an objection wit hout

elaboration, should refrain from coaching witnesses through speaking object ions,

comments, or body language, should not interrupt a dep osit ion to confer with a witness

when a question is pending, and should “refrain from making inap p ropriate remarks of any

kind.” See Doc. #108.

Five days later, on October 17, 2005, the parties placed another discovery

conference call to the Court. Mr. Hobson and Ms. Bernick had again reached

Case 2:03-cv-02537-DGC Document 149 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 3
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 -

disagreement. T he Court entered rulings on their disagreement and instructed that “the

parties shall provide the Court wit h relevant pages of today’s transcript so the Court can

determine whether sanctions are warranted for [Ms. Bernick’s comments].” See Doc. #111.

On October 19, 2005, Ms. Bernick provided the Court with relevant pages from the

deposition transcript. See Doc. #112. 

The parties again reached disagreement on December 2, 2005, and placed anot her

discovery conference call to the Court. The Court entered an Order regarding the

disagreement (Doc. #143) and, during the call, directed the parties to provide relevant

deposition pages to again determine whether counsel had violated the Court’s order

regarding deposition protocol. Mr. Hobson has now provided those pages. See Doc.

#144.

The Court has reviewed the deposition transcript submitted by t he p arties, and

reaches the following conclusions:

1. Neither side is cooperating as the Court exp ect s. Counsel for Plaintiff and

Defendant Potter are too quick to disagree, too unwilling to list en, t oo unwilling to engage

in reasonable dialog, and too quick to contact the Court for a resolution of their

differences. Calm and courteous discussion, with a genuine interest in resolving

disagreements rather than making accusations, would have resolved most if not all of the

discovery disputes in this case.

2. On October 12, 2005, t he Court specifically stated that “counsel shall refrain

from making inappropriate remarks of any kind.” Doc. #108. The Court entered this Order

after being informed that Ms. Bernick had made inappropriate remarks to Mr. Hobson

during a deposition. Ms. Bernick violated this Order in the deposition of October 17, 2005

when she made the following statement to Mr. Hobson: “Do you understand that, or are

you too stupid to understand it?” Doc. #112, Ex. at 54. Ms. Bernick further violated the

Court ’s Order in the deposition of October 19, 2005, when she responded to Mr. Hobson’s

question as follows: “Objection. You don’t need to answer that.” When Mr. Hobson

asked the basis for her objection, Ms. Bernick replied: “It’s a stupid question.” Doc. #144,

Case 2:03-cv-02537-DGC Document 149 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Ex. 2 at 2-3. T hese statements by Ms. Bernick are inappropriate, unprofessional, and a

violation of the Court’s Order of Oct ober 12, 2005. As a sanction for violating the Court’s

Order, and pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, M s. Bernick

p ersonally shall pay Plaintiff $150.00 in attorneys’ fees, which represents the Court’s

estimate of the value of the t ime wasted by Plaintiff’s counsel in seeking the Court’s

intervention. More severe sanctions will be imposed if M s. Bernick persists in this

unprofessional conduct . T his sanction shall be paid to Plaintiff on or before

December 31, 2005.

3. T he Court expects all counsel to behave professionally in all aspects of t his

case yet to be completed.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-02537-DGC Document 149 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 3