Opinion ID: 2499817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Disclosures and Discovery

Text: Orr's attorney, Rice, gleaned from early communications with Respondent that telephone conversations were not going to be productive and that written missives would need to be routed through e-file to verify they had been received. By late January 2008, Rice had, without success, informally requested that Respondent provide a copy of Hoch's recorded lien. [8] He later reminded Respondent that his C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) disclosures had come due. [9] Rice testified that without reviewing the notice of lien, the recorded lien, and the documents quantifying Hoch's claims, he was in no position to discuss settlement on Orr's behalf. More than four months after Hoch's complaint was filed, Rice was still attempting to figure out the lay of the land. Said Rice, Unless I know there's a valid lien or trust fund claim, I'm shadowboxing. [10] In the meantime, Hoch was experiencing financial trouble and had pinned his hopes on a quick and early settlement to get the money [he] needed. Even so, Respondent stalled on providing disclosures, contending the case was not yet at issue. Not until March 1, 2008, did Respondent file Hoch's C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) disclosure statement. [11] In these initial disclosures, Respondent identified the following documents in his custody and control as pertinent to the allegations of Hoch's complaint: 1. Any and all documents included on the attached CD rom (TBA). 2. Any pleadings filed in the case. 3. Any and all items, documents or tangible things disclosed by the Defendants. [12] The disclosures also noted that documents were available for inspection if not included on the attached CD rom. [13] Notwithstanding this certification, Respondent did not list by individual name or category the documents allegedly contained on the CD-ROM, nor did he enclose a CD-ROM when he transmitted these disclosures to Orr's attorney, Rice. [14] Indeed, he never created a CD-ROM. Rice recalls asking Respondent to produce the CD-ROM and volunteering to pay the costs of copying the disc, but he received no response. Instead, Rice became aware of a May 16, 2008, status report Respondent had submitted to the court that stated Hoch had made full disclosures and noted Orr was given copies of all disclosed documents prior to litigation and [has] them. [15] On behalf of Orr, Rice complained to the court in a June 25, 2008, motion for sanctions that he had not been served with Respondent's status report. Rice also alleged the report contained misstatements concerning Respondent's compliance with disclosure obligations. Specifically, Rice averred he had received  nothing in the form of documents from Respondent, who had failed to produce information most basic to [the] case, that being a copy of the notice of intent to [file a] lien that purportedly supports [Hoch's] lien claim. [16] Rice also contradicted Respondent's representation that Orr had been given copies of all disclosed documents prior to litigation, insisting instead that his client Orr was in possession of only a smattering of documents informally provided by Hoch's prior counsel. [17] In early July 2008, Rice wrote to Respondent again to request a copy of the CD-ROM, [18] which Rice had begun to view as the holy grail substantiating Hoch's claims. Respondent replied a week later, writing, The CD rom you are seeking is attorney work product, however, you may view it in our office, on reasonable notice, with an appointment. [19] He also instructed Rice to bring the documents Orr had disclosed as relevant so both lawyers could simultaneously examine the other party's disclosures. Rice, who lives and works in the Denver metropolitan area, testified that he thought Respondent's invitation to travel to Dolores to review the CD-ROM was foolish and would have had an adverse impact on the economics of settling the case. Rice also protested in a reply for his motion for sanctions, Exactly how documents disclosed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) can be work product and subject to any protection or other limitation of review or use is unclear, and exactly why counsel for Orr should travel to Dolores to review a CD-ROM that costs roughly $5.00 to re-produce and mail is even less clear. [20] On July 31, 2008, Rice served Orr's first set of discovery requests, which specifically asked for Hoch's notice of intent to file a lien and his notice of lien. [21] Just a week later, in an August 7, 2008, letter, Rice again exhorted Respondent to provideat Orr's expensecopies of all documents identified in Hoch's initial disclosures. [22] And in an August 18, 2008, motion, Rice asked the court to compel Respondent to produce relevant documents, including the CD-ROM identified in Hoch's initial disclosures. [23] All of these entreaties went unanswered, although Respondent filed an August 19, 2008, motion requesting an extension of time to respond to Orr's discovery requests. [24] That month, Rice resolved to move forward to file on Orr's behalf four partial summary judgment motions, even in the absence of basic disclosures by Respondent. Rice sent Respondent another letter on October 26, 2008, reminding him that October 19, 2008the date of the extension Respondent sought in his motion for additional timehad come and gone, yet Respondent had not responded to Orr's discovery requests. Nevertheless, Respondent failed to comply with his discovery obligations. As such, Rice filed another motion to compel discovery and for an award of fees and costs on November 6, 2008. [25] On November 12, 2008, the court ruled on Orr's outstanding motions, awarding Orr summary judgment on Hoch's quantum meruit and mechanic's lien claims, [26] but it allowed Hoch to re-file his trust fund claim under a different statutory provision. The court also granted Orr's motion to compel in its entirety and ordered Hoch to give Orr each and every document identified or otherwise alluded to in Hoch's C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) disclosures within 10 days of the entry of this order. [27] In addition, the court assessed against Respondent the attorney's fees and costs Orr had incurred in attempting to obtain Hoch's C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) disclosures. [28] Respondent promptly amended Hoch's complaint. But instead of complying with the court's directive to provide disclosures, Respondent waited twelve days to file a motion for clarification and reconsideration, in which he asked the court to clarify its order and state what additional documents it is ordering the Plaintiffs to disclose (that the ORR Defendants do not already have). [29] Sometime shortly thereafter, Orrrather than its attorney, Ricereceived a box from Cortez via U.P.S. bearing no return address and enclosing no transmittal letter, but containing a jumble of unidentified photocopied documents, many of which Orr had earlier produced to Hoch. [30] Rice correctly assumed that Hoch, not Respondent, had forwarded these documents to Orr. [31] Rice testified he also received a facsimile transmission accompanied by forty pages of documents, but the facsimile cover sheet failed to identify the sender and subject of the facsimile. A little more than a week after receiving the U.P.S. box, Rice submitted to the court a status report in which he protested that Hoch had not fully complied with the court's order. [32] On January 31, 2009, the court granted Orr's proposed order to dismiss certain counts of Hoch's amended complaint. [33] In particular, the court dismissed on the basis of res judicata Hoch's amended claim to foreclose on the same mechanic's lien the court had rejected in November 2008. Hoch's amended quantum meruit claim, which Respondent unsuccessfully pursued in the original complaint, was also dismissed. As such, the court ordered the release of any and all notices of lis pendens associated with Hoch's asserted mechanic's liens. Throughout January 2009, Respondent made no additional disclosures nor provided any responses to the discovery requests Rice had filed on Orr's behalf. On February 4, 2009, the court issued a minute order directing Respondent to comply with its November 12, 2008, order within fifteen days and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal of Hoch's amended complaint and an award of attorney's fees. [34] Nevertheless, Rice certified on February 28, 2009, that he had not received the CD-ROM identified in Hoch's March 1, 2008, disclosures, nor had he received any written discovery responses, save for an undated, unsigned, incomplete memorandum that does not begin to respond to the discovery that Orr served in August of 2008. [35] Indeed, Respondent never complied with the court's order before withdrawing as Hoch's counsel of record on March 25, 2009. [36] The People allege Respondent violated several Rules of Professional Conduct by mismanaging disclosure and discovery in Hoch's case. The People's Claim II, predicated on Colo. RPC 1.3, alleges Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in his prosecution of Hoch's matter. In their Claim VI, the People urge us to find that Respondent fell afoul of Colo. RPC 3.2 by failing to expedite the litigation when he delayed the discovery process. Their Claim VII asserts Respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in contravention of Colo. RPC 3.4(c); the People argue that Respondent's refusal to comply with the court's November 12, 2008, and February 4, 2009, orders constituted a knowing defiance of those orders. Likewise, the People contend in Claim VIII that Respondent's continued rebuff of Rice's requests for disclosure and discoverycompounded by his disobedience of the court's ordersamounts to a violation of Colo. RPC 3.4(d), which compels attorneys to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests by opposing counsel. [37] Respondent vehemently denies his behavior in the discovery process was unethical or unprofessional. He swears it is standard practice to use shorthand in disclosures and to wait for subsequent discovery efforts before making full disclosures, and he says attorneys commonly invite opposing counsel to inspect materials where they are stored. Respondent also portrays the discovery phase of the case as largely out of his control. He flatly disputes that Hoch ever brought him any documents, whether in binders, boxes, or files, and he labors under what appears to be the misimpression that in June 2007 Hoch gave to Orr employees a set of documents quantifying Hoch's claims. From that premise, he argues his conduct in the matter was fueled by his knowledge that Orr had in its possession the best and only evidence supporting the lien. At the same time, Respondent also acknowledges that bookkeeping entries proving up Hoch's claims could be located in an electronic database stored on Hoch's business computer, noting that, with the database, we could generate any information [Rice] wanted or any responses to inquiries he had. Yet while the database contained core information to recreate Hoch's work invoices, which Respondent concedes would have been relevant to the discovery Rice sought, Respondent testified there was no way to take the raw data out of Hoch's computer and put it on a CD-ROM; it would have made no sense without Hoch's computer. [38] Accordingly, he says, he was required to lend Rice his own notes to make sense of the native format source records and thus invited Rice to view the data entries in Dolores. Above all, Respondent lays all discovery deficiencies and delays at Rice's and Hoch's feet. Respondent is indignant about what he views as Orr's own discovery failings, and he criticizes Rice, as Orr's attorney, for failing to specifically articulate which documents he sought in discovery. As for Hoch, Respondent paints him as completely unprepared and unreachable, as though he disappeared from the face of the earth. He says the delay in providing timely discovery responses can be attributed to what he considers to have been Hoch's uncooperative attitude during the summer of 2008, as evidenced by Hoch's alleged cancellation of several pre-arranged meetings in August 2008. The Hearing Board concludes the People have shown clearly and convincingly that Respondent's conduct violated Colo. RPC 1.3, 3.2, [39] 3.4(c), and 3.4(d). In short, Respondent failed to act with diligence and promptness, waiting six months to provide rule-mandated disclosures, then only to promise but not produce a CD-ROM. For the year thereafter, Respondent withheld disclosure of basic information relating to Hoch's claimswith alternating and oftentimes conflicting justificationseven though Rice specifically brought the matter to Respondent's attention at least ten times. [40] In the same manner, Respondent flatly ignored Rice's repeated appeals to respond to Orr's discovery requests for seven months: by March 2009, when Respondent withdrew as Hoch's counsel, those requests were still outstanding. And most egregious, he flouted two court orders mandating he promptly provide disclosures and discovery. Further, Respondent's decision to assert certain claims was, at best, questionable, particularly those premised on Hoch's mechanic's liens, which were ultimately adjudged patently invalid. [41] His failure to investigate the bases for Hoch's trust fund claim, as Rice urged, ultimately resulted in the dismissal of that claim. [42] And his decision to re-plead in Hoch's amended complaint quantum meruit and mechanic's lien claims, which were identical to those that had earlier been dismissed on the merits, suggests a lack of proper inquiry into and analysis of Hoch's matter that falls short of the diligence standards expected of Colorado lawyers. We note we do not give Respondent's defenses any credence. Whether or not Respondent believed he was adhering to normal procedures, his conduct had the effect of promot[ing] principles of gamesmanship and hid[ing] the ball, and his lack of diligence in responding to Rice's requests was tantamount to obstructing the discovery process. [43] Likewise, that discoverable information relevant to Hoch's claims was stored electronically, be it in native format, Windows, or scanned PDF files, cannot justify departure from Respondent's obligations as an attorney; Respondent had a duty to disclose and produce any data compilations from which information can be obtained [and] translated, if necessary, . . . through detection devices into reasonably usable form. . . . [44] Further, whether pre-litigation documents were exchanged or whether Rice complied with his discovery obligations is of no consequence, as the rules make no exception for lack of compliance on these scores. And finally, even if it were true that Hoch compromised Respondent's prosecution of his case by failing to communicatea finding we do not make, since the Hearing Board adjudges Hoch a sincere witness who was very much vested in the litigation's outcome [45]  Respondent would not be excused from fulfilling his duties as Hoch's legal counsel. Respondent was obligated to, but did not, pursue Hoch's matter and take whatever lawful and ethical measures [were] required to vindicate [Hoch's] cause, even in the face of opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience. [46] As such, we conclude Respondent's continued inaction in complying with his disclosure and discovery obligations represents an abuse of the discovery process far more egregious than the discovery disputes typically resolved by trial courts. [47] His misconduct is an arrant dereliction of his responsibilities as a lawyer and an officer of the court.