Al so be fo re the Court is p la int if

f' s mo tio n f

or a he ari ng , whic h w a s f

ile d a s p art

of his 1 opposition t o defe ndant' s motion for sanctions. Be cause the Court is able to dec ide the pending motions on t he basis of the curr ent re cord, no he aringis nece ssary and that motion will be denied a s w e ll. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

M IC HA NG ELO SC RU G G S, P la in t if f, v. Ci vilAc ti on N o. 07 -2 25 5 ( JD B) GETING E USA, INC., Defendan t.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION & O RD ER Be fore the Court are three motions filed by defe ndant -- a

motion for sanctions, a motion for lea ve to file a

third supplemental memora ndum in support of the motion for sanctions, and a mot ion to s tr ike a

late -d e signate d e xpe rt

re po rt . T he se mot ion s a

re but th e late st c ha

pte rs in
c ouns e ls' c on tin

uin gina bil ity to c on du c t di sc ov e ry

c ivi lly and re a so na bly . A ll thr e e mot ion s w ill be denie d. 1 BACK GR OUND De fe n d an tfi l eda m o t i o nfo r s an ct i o n s o nFe b ru ary 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , s ee k i n g t o s tri k e p l ai n t i ff 's
wa g e los s c la im a

nd re qu e sti ngan o rd e r r e qu ir ingpla int if f t o s ub mit

to a n H I V s c re e n. With respe ct to the wag e loss claim, def endant c ontended that plaintiff ha d willfully withheld the identity of two doctors a

nd pharma cy

rec ords in violation of court orde rs, thus demonstratingthat he wa s conce alinga pre -existi ngback c ondition that would independently reduc e his future
ear nings. When plaintiff e x plained that he ha d simply forg otten that he had r ece ived treatment-2-

from those two doc tors, defe ndant asser ted that plaintiff wa s lying. A s to the HI V issue, defe ndant ar g ued that plaintiff' s withholding of pha rmac y rec ords, coupled w ith evidence that he had wr itten "homoer otic" nove ls, worked with AI DS gr oups, and see n an internist with an interest in HIV, provided g ood cause to order pla intiff to submitto an HIV test. On April 13, 2009, the Court def err ed rulingon the motion. The Court order ed production of c erta in medical re cords a nd provided de fenda

nt with an opportunity

to depose the doctors whose identity

plaintiff had not pre viously disclosed, as we ll as a limited deposition of pla int if f' s mo the r, wh o h a d p ro vid e d p la int if f w itha pr e sc ri pti on

dr ug(F le xer il) . T he Court

a lso p r o v i d e d d e f e n d an tano p p o rtun i ty t o r e qu e s ta d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y. After the Court' s April 13 Orde r, def endant f iled a motion for additional discove ry and a motion to compel, and plaintiff filed a motion to s trike. The Court r uled on those motions on May 4, 2009, and pre fac ed its analy sis by noting that the pa

rties had " filed numerous motions and soug ht the Court's inter

vention . . . with alarmingalac rity " de spite repe ated r eminders " that the part ies ami cabl y

res ol ve ro ut in e di sco very di sp ut es w it ho utseek in g the a ss is tan ce of th e C ou rt ." May 4 Orde r at 1. The Court then denied de fenda nt's motion for a dditional discovery as premature a

nd cumulative bec ause it simply repe ated the r equest made in the still -pending
m o t i o nfo r s an ct i o n s . As t o th e m o t i o nt o co mp el , th e C o urto rd er edp ro d u ct i o no f p l ai n t i ff

's M C A T s c o r e s an d

t a x r e c o r d s s i n c e 2 0 0 5
. F i n a l l y, th e C o urt c l ar i f i e d th e s c o p e o f

p r e v i o u s l yorder ed discove ry

and g rante d plaintiff' s motion t o strike a r eply brief f iled without permission by de fe nd ant. Pursuant to the Court's A pril 13 Order , the par

ties filed supplemental memora nda supporting a

nd opposing de fenda

nt's motion for sa

nctions on J une 10, 2009, and June 17, 2009,-3-

respe ctively . Also on J une 10, 2009, def endant f iled a motion to strike, and on J une 19, 2009, defe ndant filed a

motion for leave to file a third supplementa l memorandum. All three motions
are now ripe f

or re solution. AN AL YSI S The Court orde red f

urther disc overy

to permit defe ndant to explore whether plaintiff had withheld information to conce al a pr e-e x isting bac k condition or HIV/AI DS status. Bef ore the Court's A pril 13 Order , defe ndant had a rgued that plaintiff ha d likely seen D r. Ter

ry Thompson for tre atment of a

pre- exis ting ba ck injury , see D ef.' s Mar. 23, 2009 Supp. Mem. at 1-2, a nd that pla int if f h a d s e e n D r. Ric ard o Ca lde ra fo r H I V/AI DS- re late d tr e atme nt, se e De f. ' s Me m. i n Support of Mot. for Sanctions at 10-11. Plaintiff' s aver ments to the contrar

y wer e lies, def

endant surmised, so sanctions wer e appr opriate. B ut beca use the re cord w as incomplete at the time, further discovery

was wa rra nted. I f the testimony

of Dr. T hompson and Dr. Calde ra showe d that defe ndant' s prediction wa s corr ect, then pla intiff' s withholding of their identities in the face of court orde rs might indee d be sanc tionable. Although the Court permitted furthe r discover y , defe ndant' s J une 10 supplementa l memorandum e ssentially

ignor es the ne w deposition testimony . A re view of the deposition transcr ipt shows why . Dr. Thompson testified that he treated plaintiff bec ause of a hip strain, not beca use of ba ck pain. Thompson De p. at 48:9-20. Dr. Ca ldera testified that he tre ated plaintiff beca use of injuries sustained dur ing the acc ident formingthe basis of this case , not for any HIV/AI DS-related re asons. Caldera Dep. at 50:19-22; 67:1-7; 70:11-14. Hence , the additional discovery plainly shows that plaintiff did not intentionally fail to disclose the identities of Dr
. Thompson and Dr. Calde ra in orde r to hide a pr e-e x isting condition.The Court' s May 4 Orde r re quired the pr oduction of " full tax rec ords" from 2005 to the 2 prese nt. The term " rec ords" encompa sses documentation attached to plaintiff' s tax returns f or tho se y e ars . T o th e e xtent pl a int if f h a s n ot p ro du c e d th e ba c k- up do c ume ntatio n atta c he d to his tax returns for 2005 to the pre sent, he shall do so for thwith. -4- De fe nd ant n on e the le ss a

rgue s th at pl a int if

f' s mo tiv e s a

re su sp e c t be c a

us e he ha s n ot f

ull y complied with the Court' s May 4 Orde r re quiring the produc tion of tax rec ords since 2005 by May 18, 2009. In response to the Court's Ma y 4 Orde r, plaintiff produc ed his tax return for 2008, an undate d, unsigne d and ame nded tax return for 2007, and " rec ords of a ccount" for 2005 a nd 2006. On May

12, 2009, defe ndant re quested the a ctual re turns for 2005 a nd 2006 and plaintiff reque sted those re turns from the Interna l Revenue Ser vice the ne x t day . See B raunstein De cl. ¶ 4. On May

20, 2009, and ag ain on J une 3, 2009, def endant r equeste d documentation to bac k up more than $42,000 taken in business and medic al deduc tions over those four y ear s. Plainti ff provided doc umentation for a portion of the deduc tions on J une 10, 2009. Def endant' s eff

orts to char acte rize plaintiff' s behavior a s sanctionable a re unc onvincing
. No ba d f a ithis d isc e rn a

ble fr om t he c or re sp on de nc e be tw e e n th e pa rt ie s a nd the mate ri a ls produce d by

plaintiff. Plaintiff' s counsel re sponded promptly to defe ndant' s reque sts and asked defe ndant to notify

him if it believed that production wa s incomplete. See Ma y 11, 2009 L etter from J. C ammarata to D.S. Schwinn; May 15, 2009 L etter f

rom J . Cammarata

to S. Allenson. Al tho ug h p la int if

f h a s a pp are ntl y no t y e t r e c e ive d 2 00 5- 06 tax for ms f ro m th e I RS, h e tim e ly
re qu e ste d th os e fo rm s and the I RS' s d e lay

in p ro vid ing

the m do e s n ot a

mou nt t o s anc tio na

ble conduct by

plaintiff. Nor doe s plaintiff' s incomplete production of ba ck-up doc umentation 2 constitute bad fa ith. Defe ndant first re quested ba ck-up doc umentation on May 20, 2009, two da y s a ft e r t he de a dli ne fo r p ro du c tio n h a d p a sse d. Se e Ma y 20 , 2 00 9 L e tte r f

ro m S. Al le ns on

to-5-

J . Cammarata
. In sum, the Court has provided de fenda nt with ample opportunity to demonstrate that plaintiff has withheld infor mation in bad faith. A motion that has spawne d no few er tha n eig hteen br iefs, thre e additional depositions, documentar y discovery , and hundre ds of pag es of appendic es has r evea led no evidenc e to under cut plaintiff' s claim that he simply forg ot the names of two doctors. N othing in the r ecor d shows that he has hidde n the identities of doctors or ph arm a c ie s to hid e a

pr e -e xistin gc on dit ion . A c c or din g ly , d e fe nd ant' s mo tio n f or sa nc tio ns is h e r e b y DE NI ED
. In a fina l effor

t to persuade the Court that plaintiff has a cted in bad f aith and is deser

ving of sanc tio n, de fe nd ant f

ile d a mot ion fo r l e ave to f

ile a thi rd su pp le me nta l me mor and

um i n support of its motion for sanctions. Attache d to the motion is a memora ndum in which defe ndant argues that newevidenc e that plaintiff a pplied to become a

podiatric surg eon in J anuar y 2008 -- afte r the incide nt at issue in this case -- somehow demonstrates that his motives were ne far ious. To be sure , p la int if

f' s a pp lic atio n to be c ome a

po diatr ic surg e on

is r e le va nt t o h is w a g e los s c la im
-- a jury may find that he is able to wor k as a podiatric surg eon and he nce is not entitled to future lost wag es or is entitled to less than he c laims. B ut p la int if

f' s a pp lic atio n to be c ome a

po diatr ic surg e on

ha s n oth ingto d o w ith defe ndant' s motion for sanctions. The a pplication is irreleva

nt to defenda

nt's c laim that plaintiff is seekingto conce al a pr e-e x isting bac k condition and to defe ndant' s unsubstantiated claim that plaintiff is seekingto conce al HIV/AI DS status. This is prec isely the kind of fr ivolous and vexatious m otion barre d by the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e. Indeed, the Court has war ned the pa

rties seve ral times that it has littl e patienc e for such-6-

motions. On May

4, for e x ample, the Court noted that [a] lthough the Court ha s repe atedly stressed its pref

ere nce that the parties a micably resolve r outine discovery disputes without seeking the assistance of the Court, the pa rties throug h their re spective co un s el h av e f

i l ednu m er o u s m o t i o n s an d s o u gh tth e C o urt 's intervention in such disputes with alar ming a lacr ity . I t bear s repe atingy et ag ain: it is t he Court' s hope -- indeed, its expectation -- that the pa

rties will resolve a

ny rema ining discove ry

disputes throug h neg otiation and compromise. May 4 Orde r at 1. F urthermor e, the Court has a lrea dy denied other

motions or briefs filed by defe ndant as pre mature or filed without leave of cour t. For e x ample, the Ma

y 4 Orde r denie d defe ndant' s motion for production of c erta in HI V-re lated mater ials as pre mature a nd duplicative,
no tin gthat de fe nd ant' s mo tio n f or sanc tio ns -- wh ic h w a s st ill pe nd ing-- ma de the e xac t sa me reque st. I d. Simi larly , the Court also g rante d plaintiff' s motion t o strike def endant' s reply

brief, which wa s unnece ssary , not contemplated by a pre vious briefingschedule , and filed w ithout the Court's pe rmission. I d. at 3.

" Rul e 11 sanc tio ns pr ote c t th e c ourt fr om f ri vo lou s a nd ba se le ss f

ili ng s th at are no t w e ll g rounded, le g ally

untenable, or

brought with the purpose of ve x atiously multipl ying the proce eding s." B utler v. Potomac Elec . Power Co., Civ.A.No. 03-0946, 2004 WL4972367, at *5 (D .D .C. Au g . 2 5, 20 04 ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio ns and c itatio ns omi tte d) . " Th e te st [f or sa nc tio ns ] under Rule 11 is an obje ctive one: that is, whe ther a rea sonable inquiry

would have r evea led that the re wa s n o b a sis in l aw o r f a c t f or the a sse rt e d c la im. Th e Court mus t a lso take int o consideration that Rul e 11 sanc tions are a harsh punishment, and what ef fec t, if any , the alleg ed vi ol ati on s m ay

hav e hadon ju di cia l p roce edi ngs. " Sh arp v . R os a Mex ica no , D. C. , L L C, 49 6 F. Sup p. 2d 93 , 1 00 (D .D .C. 20 07 ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio ns and c itatio ns omi tte d) . Si mil arl y , 2 8 U .S. C.Wit hin fourtee n day s of this Memorandum Opinion and Or der, pla intiff shall file a 3 detailed billing br eakdown of the fe es re asonably incurre d that he see ks. The Court will then deter mine what fe es shall be r ecove red. -7- § 1927 provides that: " Any attorney or other pe rson admitted to conduct c ases in any court of the Un ite d St ate s o r a

ny Te rrito ry the re of wh o s o mu lti pli e s th e pr oc e e din g s in any c a se
unre a so na

bly and ve xati ou sly

may be re qu ir e d b y

the c ourt to s atis fy pe rs on a lly

the e xce ss c os ts, expenses, and attorne y s' fee s rea sonably incurre d beca

use of suc h conduct." Henc e, a violation of § 1 92 7 " oc c ur s w he n a

lawye r' s c on du c t g oe s b e y on d me re ne g lig e nc e and c are le ssn e ss a

nd is
r e c k le s s in

li g h t o f th e c ir c u ms ta

n c e s . " M im s v . B CE , In c . , Ci v . A
. N o . 0 3
- 2 2 0 3 , 2 0 0 9 WL 464263, at *2 (D.D .C. Feb. 24, 2009) (citingUnited States v. Wallace, 964 F .2d 1214, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). Whate ve r p atie nc e the Court on c e ha d h a s n owru

n o ut. De fe nd ant' s mo tio n f or le ave to file a third suppleme ntal memorandum in support of its motion for sanctions has no ba sis in law or fa ct. Resolution of the motion has require d not only the Court' s attention, but also briefing from plaintiff. Unde r Rule 11 and § 1927, the a ppropriate sanction for

such a motion is an awa

rd of attorne y s' fee s rea sonably incurre d by

plaintiff bec ause of

defe ndant' s motion. S ee § 1927. A c c o r d i n g l y, d e f

e n d an t ' s m o t i o ni s h e r e b y DE NI ED and plaintiff is aw arde d attorney s' fee s
rea sonably

incurre d by

plaintiff bec ause of

the motion. 3 The fina l motion i s defe ndant' s motion t o strike the late- desig nated e x pert re port of Dr
. Estelle Davis. Dr . Davis -- who is not a medica l doctor -- orig inally filed an e x pert re port on May 22, 2008. She did not offer any medical opinions. Instead, re lying on the medical opinions of the phy sic ians wh o h a d tr e ate d p la int if f, Dr . D avis op ine d a s to wh at pl a int if f m ig ht e arn

a s a prac ticing podiatric surg eon, what he cur rently ear ns as a pr oject mana g er, a nd what he mig ht-8-

ear n as a ma nag er if he obtained an a dvance d deg ree in health administration. The de adline for disclosing e x pert opinions was June 9, 2008, and Dr. D avis was de posed on Nove mber 3, 2008. Then, on Mar ch 30, 2009, Dr . Davis sent a le tter to plaintiff' s counsel statingthat "inde pendent of Dr. Scr ug g ' s [s ic] back pain, g iven the per sistence a nd the per manenc e of his ver

tigo, Dr
. Scrug g s is not able to perfor m the occupation of a Podiatric Surg eon." See Mar . 30, 2009 L etter from E. Da

vis to J . Cammarata . Def endant se eks to strike this March 30 le tter. Def endant take s issue with the Marc h 30 opinion because it was filed af ter the de adline fo r d isc los inge xpe rt

op ini on s and

a ft e r D r. Da

vis wa s d e po se d. Whil e tr ou bli ng , th e de lay

in filing is not suffic ient rea son to gr ant def endant' s motion t o strike. Indeed, the Court denied a simil ar motion to strike filed by plaintiff. On De cembe r 10, 2008, def endant of fer ed a supplemental re port by

its vocational reha

bilitation ex pert, Dr . Rose. The de adline for disclosing expert opinions had passed and D r. Rose' s deposition had alre ady been c onducted. See J anuar y 14, 2009 Orde r at 1. The Court denied plaintiff' s motion t o strike, per mitted the supplemental repor t to be filed, and a llowed plaintiff to depose Dr. Rose fur ther re g ardingthe new issues raised in the supple mental re port. I d. The Court will follow the same a pproac h here
. De fe n d an tal s o ch ar ac t er i z es th e M ar ch 3 0 o p i n i o nas "a p er fe ctex am p l e o f s an d b aggi n g" b ec au s e d ef

en d an th as n o o p p o rt un i ty t o re s p o n d

an d ca n n o tad equ at el y

p re p ar e f o r t ri al
. De f. 's Me m. i n Su

pp or t of Mo t. t o Stri ke at 5- 6. Th is i s a n o ve rs tate me nt f

or se ve ra l r e a so ns . T o b e g in wi th, thi s c a se is n ot o n th e ve rg e of g oin gto t

ri a l. N or is d e fe nd ant d e pr ive d o f a n o pp or tun ity to respond. As de scribed a bove, the Court pre viously permitted def

endant to supplement a

n expert repor

t provided plaintiff ha d an opportunity to re-ope n the expert' s deposition, and the Court will follow the same appr oach he re. F urthermor e, plaintiff c ontends that he c annot workP l ai n t i ff av er s th atDr
. Da v i s 's M ar ch 3 0 o p i n i o ni s o ff er edo n l y t o s h o w t h atp l ai n t i ff

's 4 lost wag es re main the same r eg ardle ss of the re ason he is unable to work as a podiatric surg eon. See, e.g ., Pl.'s Opp. to De f.' s Motion to S trike at 5. The opinion would stand on much shakier g ro un d w e re pla int if

f o ff e ri ngit a s a

me dic a l op ini on

be c a us e Dr . D avis a

pp e ars un qu a lif

ie d to rende r medica l conclusions. But de fenda nt has not challeng ed Dr . Davis' s qualifications as a n expert; it has only

challeng ed the timeliness of he r Mar ch 30 opinion. -9- beca use he is disabled. That is a medical que stion. As noted above, Dr . Davis is not a medica l do c tor . H e r e xpe rt

op ini on re lie s o n p hy sic ians ' op ini on s th at pl a int if f c ann ot w or

k a s a po diatr ic surg eon, and ba sed on the phy sicians' opinions she opines as to what plaintiff mig ht ear n. Plaintiff's phy sicians have consistently opined that plaintiff' s back pa in and ver tigo a re independe nt cause s of his inability to work as a

podiatric surg eon. See, e .g ., Mace do Dep. at 94:19-95:14. Henc e, plaintiff' s position t hat he is unable to work bec ause of vertig o cannot have caught defe ndant off guard. 4 A c c o r d i n g l y, d e f

e n d an t ' s m o t i o nt o s tr i k e i s h e r e b y DE NI ED . I f d e fe nd ant w ish e s to depose D r. Davis reg ardingher Ma rch 30 opinion, then de fenda nt may do so. The dea dline for discovery is ex tended until August 10, 2009 for this purpose. SO ORDERED.

/s/ JohnD. B ate s J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge Date: July

13, 2009