Opinion ID: 2562535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: Plaintiff-Respondent Marcia Pinkstaff initiated the present lawsuit in 2008 to recover approximately $23,000 in wages she claims Defendant-Petitioners owe her under the terms of a bonus plan. In the complaint, Pinkstaff asserted that she was employed by Baldwin and Black & Decker and, under the terms of the bonus plan, Baldwin and Black & Decker improperly calculated her yearly bonus. Baldwin and Black & Decker answered the complaint, admitting that Pinkstaff was an employee of Baldwin, but denying that she was employed by Black & Decker. They also denied that Pinkstaff was owed additional compensation by either Baldwin or Black & Decker. They additionally asserted various affirmative defenses, including waiver, estoppel, laches, ratification, consent, acquiescence, lack of consideration, justifiable reliance, breach of contract, and failure to fulfill a necessary condition. [1] Discovery disputes commenced almost immediately after the case was at issue. Pinkstaff submitted her initial disclosures pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(a) on April 29, 2008. Thereafter, Baldwin and Black & Decker submitted initial and amended disclosures in which they listed seventeen persons with knowledge of discoverable information. Pinkstaff then submitted a motion for disputed modified case management order in which she asserted that Defendant-Petitioners refused to conduct informal discovery or allow her to interview any of the seventeen individuals with discoverable information. Accordingly, Pinkstaff asked the trial court to permit her to depose all seventeen individuals. The parties contested the number of witnesses over whom Baldwin and Black & Decker had control and the number of depositions Pinkstaff could conduct. On August 1, 2008, the trial court held a case management conference at which it denied the request for seventeen depositions, calling the request ridiculous. At the conference, the parties discussed the legal relationship between Black & Decker and Baldwin, and the trial court expressed frustration with both parties stating I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.... Both of you sit down. This is ridiculous. You ought to be embarrassed that you are here. This is a simple, straightforward case. The trial court ordered Baldwin and Black & Decker to provide information concerning Baldwin's financial status and its relationship to Black & Decker. After a lengthy debate about the individuals Pinkstaff could contact directly, the trial court requested one of Defendant-Petitioners' attorneys, Steven Gutierrez, to comply with the letter and spirit of [his] professional responsibilities. The court also ordered Gutierrez to produce a genuine and legitimate [C.R.C.P.] 30(b)(6) witness list. On August 6, 2008, Pinkstaff filed a motion to compel discovery alleging continuing violations of discovery protocol. Black & Decker and Baldwin responded, admitting some errors in their disclosures and again arguing that Black & Decker was not a proper defendant. In an effort to resolve the discovery disputes, the court held a hearing on September 10, 2008. At the hearing, the court expressed concern about client control, and ordered representatives of Black & Decker and Baldwin to appear at every further hearing so they can see what some of the issues are. The court also ordered corporate counsel for Black & Decker to appear at the next hearing in order to assess either what problem he's causing, or what problems local counselmeaning both sidesare causing. In response, Gutierrez stated To the extent you find my conduct has violated the Professional Rules, I would accept sanctions by you[] or the professional bar. Following the hearing, the trial court issued a written order. Among other things, the order required a second deposition of a representative of Baldwin, a deposition of a representative of Black & Decker, that the depositions be scheduled by September 30, 2008, that Baldwin and Black & Decker produce organizational charts, that Baldwin and Black & Decker produce other non-privileged documents, and that Gutierrez and Pinkstaff's counsel, Nina Kazazian, not contact one another. On September 16, Pinkstaff filed a motion to enforce the court's September 10 order. The motion requested sanctions against Baldwin and Black & Decker pursuant to C.R.C.P. 37, specifically asking that the court enter an order striking Baldwin and Black & Decker's answer and affirmative defenses, precluding them from presenting any evidence in support of their defenses or in opposition to plaintiff's claims. Additionally, Pinkstaff requested an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion to compel and in conjunction with the yet-to-be conducted depositions. At a hearing on September 26, 2008, representatives of Baldwin and Black & Decker did not appear. However, they did appear at subsequent hearings. [2] Depositions of representatives of Baldwin and Black & Decker did not occur by the court ordered date of September 30; however, On October 14 and October 26, respectively, representatives of Baldwin and Black & Decker were deposed. Several days before the depositions, Defendant-Petitioners produced organizational charts for Baldwin, The Black & Decker Corporation (a non-party), and verified that Black & Decker does not maintain organizational charts separate from those produced for The Black & Decker Corporation. Black & Decker and Baldwin also produced a number of additional documents prior to the depositions. However, the parties dispute whether these documents constituted the other non-privileged documents the trial court ordered Black & Decker and Baldwin to produce. Discovery disputes continued throughout much of October, November, and early December of 2008. On December 19, the trial court granted Pinkstaff's September 16 motion to enforce the court's September 10 order. Basing the decision on the willful disobedience of court orders by Defendant-Petitioners and lead counsel Gutierrez, the trial court struck Defendant-Petitioners' answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint and required that Baldwin, Black & Decker, and Gutierrez pay Pinkstaff's attorneys' fees and costs. The order stated: Defendants were strongly cautioned by the Court in status hearings and the Court struggled with counsel's dysfunction endemic to this case. Nevertheless, Defendants proceeded to violate the Court's Order by failing to provide the discovery responsive to Plaintiff's requests. In fact, Defendants acknowledged in repeated hearings their potential exposure to sanction and evidences a certain resignation to their likely imposition. It almost seemed to this Court that Mr. Gutierrez was daring it to take such action. He evidences a passive/aggressive behavior and a defiant attitude that this Court has never experienced. However, the court did not point to specific discoverable items that had not been disclosed or any particular portions of the court's September 10 order which had not been complied with. Regarding the court's decision to impose the sanction of striking the answer rather than monetary sanctions, the court stated that, as Defendant-Petitioners are multi-million dollar companies, a lesser punishment of monetary sanctions would be insignificant and have no deterrent effect. Finally, the court stated that, as lead counsel for Defendant-Petitioners, Gutierrez is charged with the responsibility to ensure the Defendants comply with the Court's orders and the rules of civil procedure. The court found that Gutierrez's delay[,] ... willful failure to comply with the September 10 order ... and lack of cooperation with counsel ... has effectively stopped this case in its procedural tracks. Therefore, the court stated such flagrant violations of the Court's Order and Rules merits a finding that Defendants' counsel are also in contempt of Court. On January 20, 2009, the trial court ruled on the remaining pending motions and denied Baldwin and Black & Decker's motion to reconsider the court's January 10 order. This C.A.R. 21 petition followed. Defendant-Petitioners argue they substantially complied with the trial court's orders and attempted to provide appropriate responses to what they viewed as overbroad discovery requests in a simple contract action. They assert that the trial court's order striking their answer and affirmative defenses leaves them without any defense to Pinkstaff's claims, and the severity of this sanction is not justified in the present case. Baldwin and Black & Decker also contend the district court found Gutierrez in contempt of court without affording him the due process rights to which he is entitled. Defendant-Petitioners do not contest the imposition of attorneys' fees. We issued a rule to show cause on January 22. The trial court responded to our rule to show cause, arguing that striking Baldwin and Black & Decker's answer was a proper sanction given the discovery violations that occurred. The court also asserts it did not hold Gutierrez in contempt. Rather, the court argues the language in its December 10 order stating that Gutierrez's flagrant violations of the Court's Order and Rules merits a finding that Defendants' counsel are also in contempt of court was merely a statement that the court believed it had grounds upon which to hold Gutierrez in contempt, although it chose not to do so.