Opinion ID: 2708942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The defendants’ deposition‐related abuses

Text: The abuses did not cease after the August 13 order. Addi‐ tional episodes, while not leading to sanctions, bolstered the case for default. In May 2012, the plaintiffs’ attorneys first contacted defendants’ counsel about deposing Adam Swiech in Poland.5 The defendants delayed in scheduling the depo‐ sition, claiming that Swiech was having eye surgery in Au‐ gust 2012. Fact discovery ended on September 28, with an exception for the deposition, which the parties agreed to schedule for the week of October 15. But the defendants’ at‐ torney rebuffed repeated efforts by plaintiffs’ counsel to schedule the deposition. They indicated that Swiech’s doc‐ tors had restricted his activity. Yet Swiech had testified in a Polish court for over two hours at the end of that same Au‐ gust, just days after his eye surgery was supposed to have taken place. 5 Swiech was apparently forbidden from leaving Poland as the crim‐ inal investigation against him continued. No. 13‐2435 15 On October 2, the defendants’ lawyer sent plaintiffs’ counsel an email claiming an inability to schedule the depo‐ sition until after Swiech’s October 7 doctor’s appointment. They never reached out to the plaintiffs after this email, and Swiech was never deposed. Meanwhile, the defendants deposed plaintiff Domanus on October 23. During his deposition, the defendants’ lawyer showed Domanus what was purported to be Domanus’s “amended” 2006 tax return. The document had not been produced by either party during discovery, and Domanus stated that he did not recognize it or authorize anyone to prepare it. Upon further inquiry, the plaintiffs discovered that the return had been prepared by the defendants’ ac‐ countant at Richard Swiech’s direction. The defendants ad‐ mitted this, but cryptically explained that the “return” was a “demonstration exhibit.”6