Opinion ID: 2708942
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The HSBC account

Text: The second controversial account was a Polish HSBC ac‐ count belonging to Lewicki. Lewicki first claimed the ac‐ count was irrelevant to the dispute. He then produced an affidavit saying that he was having difficulty getting the rec‐ ords from HSBC. After more back and forth between Lewicki and the magistrate, Lewicki produced only an online transaction log for the account, which contained no details about the wire transfers the plaintiffs were interested in. The plaintiffs moved to sanction Lewicki at the same time as they did Adam Swiech. Lewicki told the magistrate judge that despite his best efforts, he could do no better than the transaction log. Lewicki’s evidence of these efforts con‐ sisted of one letter that he sent the bank; a declaration claim‐ ing that he called the bank and was told wire transfer rec‐ ords were unavailable and that the bank would not confirm their unavailability in writing; and a flier from HSBC Poland indicating that it would be winding down its banking ser‐ vices in Poland. The magistrate judge had also ordered the defendants’ attorney to contact HSBC himself, but he did not do so. Counsel instead submitted a declaration stating that No. 13‐2435 9 he “truly and honestly believed” that document production was complete. Nonetheless, the magistrate judge declined to hold Lewicki in contempt or impose sanctions. The magistrate found Lewicki’s efforts more laudable than Adam Swiech’s, and concluded that the former had complied with the dis‐ covery orders. The district judge disagreed in her August 13 order, however. The district judge found Lewicki incredible and his declaration about his phone call with HSBC insuffi‐ cient to account for the absence of wire transfer records. Not‐ ing Lewicki’s history of discovery violations and dishonesty, the court held him in contempt as well. This order was a dramatic shift from the magistrate judge’s response, but that does not mean it was an abuse of discretion. Lewicki’s single, apparently unanswered letter to HSBC does not demonstrate a diligent effort at compliance. Moreover, Lewicki’s proffered flier from HSBC, which indi‐ cated a winding‐down of retail banking in Poland, did not suggest that record availability would be compromised in any way.3 The district judge’s decision to hold Lewicki in contempt was based largely on her finding that Lewicki was not credi‐ ble. This finding, in turn, was informed by Lewicki’s pattern of discovery violations and recalcitrance. We are in no posi‐ tion to question the court’s credibility finding—especially 3 The flier indicated that HSBC Poland’s Internet banking services would cease after December 31, 2011, but that paper statements would still be available by mail. The flier did not contain any information on the availability of other types of records, such as the wire transfer confirma‐ tions sought by the plaintiffs. 10 No. 13‐2435 where, as here, the court’s determination appears reasona‐ ble. The defendants argue that the district court should not have discredited Lewicki’s declaration stating that he called the bank and was told wire transfer records were unavaila‐ ble and that the bank could not provide written confirma‐ tion. There was no evidence in the record to rebut the decla‐ ration’s assertions, the defendants contend, and under the circumstances, Lewicki could do no more than attest to the records being unavailable. But this objection does not ex‐ plain why the district judge was obligated to credit Lewicki’s declaration in the first place. This is especially true because the same declaration contained Lewicki’s incredible story about his destruction of Richard Swiech’s computer hard drive (more on that below), which cast doubt on the reliability of his entire statement. Cf. United States v. Terry, 572 F.3d 430, 434 (7th Cir. 2009) (affording “special defer‐ ence” to the district court’s credibility determinations stem‐ ming from testimony at a suppression hearing because of the court’s superior ability to evaluate credibility); Xiao v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting, in the im‐ migration context, that a single significant discrepancy was “enough to find petitioners’ entire testimony not credible”). Moreover, as the district judge noted, the wire transfer rec‐ ords that the plaintiffs sought were commonly available; at the very least, it should have been possible for Lewicki to provide confirmation from HSBC if the documents were in fact unavailable. Lewicki’s claim to the contrary was emi‐ nently suspect. In sum, the district judge’s credibility deter‐ mination was not an abuse of discretion. No. 13‐2435 11 Once the district judge found Lewicki’s testimony incred‐ ible, it followed that the magistrate judge had clearly erred by not imposing sanctions. It also meant that there was clear and convincing evidence to support a contempt finding, be‐ cause what remained was Lewicki’s unexcused failure to produce documents after multiple production orders. Thus, the district court’s imposition of harsher sanctions was no abuse of discretion.