Opinion ID: 1388652
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Nick Anton

Text: A second discovery issue the court addressed at the sanctions hearing and in the court's order of dismissal involved the production of accounting information by Nick Anton and Plaintiffs' characterization of Anton as an outside consultant. Plaintiffs assert that Anton was their employee when Plaintiffs began operations under the Agreements and remained an employee through late 2004 or early 2005. Plaintiffs assert, however, that Anton has been working for Plaintiffs as an outside consultant since early 2005. It appears that Plaintiffs have been consistent in this characterization of Anton's status to Defendants and to the district court. Barazi and Anton, however, submitted multiple liquor-license applications in Missouri during the pendency of this litigation, and they represented on the applications that Anton was Plaintiffs' manager, managing agent, or officer. Defendants sought financial reports and tax returns held by Anton during Plaintiffs' initial production of documents. By mid 2006, it was not clear that Defendants had received all of the accounting information they requested. In particular, Defendants had not received a payroll journal they believed to be important to their case. Further, Defendants had received some information as raw data that was meaningless unless opened with the same computer program used by Plaintiffs. Defendants deposed Anton in May 2006, and at that time, Anton claimed that he did not maintain a payroll journal. Defendants then asked the court for assistance. On June 30, 2006, the court ordered Anton, Barazi, and one of Plaintiffs' employees to appear in court on July 6, 2006, for an evidentiary hearing. Barazi and the employee appeared, but Anton did not. [2] Plaintiffs' counsel represented to the court that Anton was on vacation over the Fourth of July and could not be reached despite Plaintiffs' repeated attempts. In response to this assertion, the district court stated, [a]ll right, that's fine. At that hearing, Plaintiffs' attorney represented to the court that Anton was an outside consultant and not an employee. Although Barazi was present, he did not testify as to Anton's status. In mid-August, the court ordered that Plaintiffs make Anton and his computer available for another deposition. Defendants deposed Anton a second time on September 13, 2006, and Anton complied with the order, bringing his computer to the deposition. After asking a few questions, Defendants discovered that Anton's computer did, in fact, contain a file named payroll journal. Defendants terminated the deposition, reserving the right to question Anton further in the future, if deemed necessary.