Opinion ID: 2973802
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Yeah, it sounds like it, yeah.

Text: -3- Nos. 04-1798 / 04-2205 Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor Laurent said there “absolutely” were other tapes, but plaintiffs had given them to unspecified lawenforcement agencies and media outlets.1 On February 28, 2003, defendants propounded interrogatories asking plaintiffs to identify the evidence they possessed in support of their claims, and a request for production (“RFP”) of all remaining relevant audio and videotapes. A month passed without a response, so on March 28, 2003, defendants sent a letter requesting responses. Id. Plaintiffs did not respond, but rather directed their counsel Wasinger to withdraw, and he moved to do so on April 10, 2003. On April 22, 2003, nearly eight weeks after the defendants served plaintiffs with requests for all other tapes purportedly supporting their claims, defendants filed motions to compel. During a phone conference on May 1, 2003, the district court ordered plaintiffs to produce the tapes by June 8, 2003. On June 5, plaintiffs orally told defendants that they would not comply with the May 1 order to answer interrogatories, so defendants asked for a hearing on the matter. At a telephonic conference held on June 11, 2003, three days after the deadline imposed on May 1, the district court orally extended plaintiffs’ time to produce the tapes to June 20, 2003. Plaintiffs do not claim they produced any video recordings, or any additional audio recordings, by the extended deadline. 1 Defense counsel began Laurent’s deposition on December 9, 2003, then continued it on March 9, 2004. Laurent cited a medical emergency as the reason for stopping the third deposition session, on April 14, 2004. The deposition resumed on April 15, 2004, but Laurent continually invoked a privilege not to answer questions about tapes allegedly given to law enforcement. Defense counsel tried to move this session to the courthouse so that a judge could rule on Laurent’s assertions of privilege, but no judges were available. -4- Nos. 04-1798 / 04-2205 Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor On August 6, 2003, plaintiffs answered the February 28, 2003, interrogatories. This did not leave defendants adequate time to review the answers before deposing Thomson and Laurent, so defendants moved those depositions to October. In early September 2003, though, plaintiffs’ counsel Lynn Shecter called and canceled, saying she was not available until late October or early November. Before that time arrived, however, Shecter moved to withdraw, on September 30, 2003. On October 17, 2003, the district court allowed Shecter to withdraw and ordered plaintiffs to produce all outstanding discovery by November 13, 2003 – over eight months after Taylor first asked plaintiffs to produce tapes – or the complaint would be dismissed. Plaintiffs did not produce any tapes by November 13, 2003, so defendants moved for sanctions. The district court held a hearing on December 17 and ordered plaintiffs to comply with the previous order and to file affidavits confirming compliance. “Shortly thereafter,” presumably late December 2003 or January 2004, “[p]laintiffs produced 9 new CDs with . . . significant . . . additional audio recordings, 3 . . . videotapes, and about 500 documents.” Also in December 2003, Laurent testified that plaintiffs had recorded all conversations in which defendants defamed plaintiffs, and he promised they would produce those tapes: Q. What damages has Richard Laurent sustained? A. Well, you have to talk to the legal team and accountants for it, but I can tell you this, I don’t appreciate walking into a business colleague and being told that we can’t do business with you, because Taylor has told us that you’re in the mob . . . . Obviously, we have these things taped. -5- Nos. 04-1798 / 04-2205 Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor [W]e have your council people that are squealing on Ferndale like crazy . . ., but it’s all recorded and we will be glad to provide those for you. (Emphasis added.) Earlier in that same deposition, Laurent claimed that plaintiffs’ computers contained audio and video recordings of defendants’ false accusations: A. Everything is recorded as far as allegations of saying, even down to the Ferndale council people saying, who said I was a mobster, a felon and a rapist. Q. And all those tapes and so forth support your allegations – .... A. Without question. And not one and not five. We’re talking about, probably, if not close to hundreds. .... [Q.] Are you talking videotapes or audiotapes, can you clarify? [A.] Audio and video. I think video on those. I know a lot of them are recording [sic], and most of them, if not the majority, knew they were being taped, but fear for their jobs and lives, obviously, but are willing to talk to the judge . . . . .... [Q.] Just so the record is clear, on behalf of my client, I’m making a demand for the hundreds of tapes he just referenced before these depositions go [sic]. [A.] Well, they are in the computer. On February 13, 2004, plaintiffs signed affidavits stating that they had produced all requested discovery. Yet, at his deposition on March 9, 2004, Laurent testified that the tapes produced were incomplete, and that plaintiffs possessed some tapes they had not turned over at all: Q. Sir, I wanted to make clear exactly what your affidavit says, and I want you to answer my question, and the question I have to you is that you have through your attorneys provided us every single videotape that is in your possession or control that touches upon the City of Taylor and its defendants and the City of Ferndale and its defendants. .... -6- Nos. 04-1798 / 04-2205 Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor A. All the tapes, video and audiotapes, that were in my possession regarding this matter as of the date this [affidavit] was signed – by the way, since this date there’s more. We’ll be glad to give them to you. On April 12, 2004, defendants filed their second motion to compel production of the tapes. That was half a year after the second extended deadline to produce all discovery, and five months after Laurent testified that plaintiffs had other tapes that they had not produced. Defendants’ motion specified exactly which of the recordings were inadequate because they started in the middle of conversations. A few days later, on April 15, 2004, Laurent gave defendants a document entitled “Richard Laurent’s updated Notes for Memory Refreshment,” which seemed to say that plaintiffs would not try to obtain additional tapes that existed, and that they might deliberately withhold some such tapes: Make it crystal clear that the additional tapes, not in our possession and/or “control”, will be revealed only by the witnesses at deposition or at the actual trial in October 2004. Similarly, Laurent testified on March 9, 2004, that he was aware of other recordings that plaintiffs had not produced. Plaintiffs assert the following: [T]he tapes he was referencing [sic] have nothing to do with this case. They involve a completely unrelated, confidential criminal investigation by the DEA and the Fraser Police Department for which Laurent is providing information. . . . . Laurent is not an attorney, and when he was asked open[-]ended questions like “What other tapes exist, and who has them?” he responded beyond the scope of relevant discovery by stating that he was aware of these additional tapes, without regard to whether they have any bearing on this case. . . . . -7- Nos. 04-1798 / 04-2205 Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor Laurent unnecessarily, and still without relevance, complicated the appearance of the issue when he stated that he could not produce these irrelevant tapes because he had agreed with the law enforcement agencies to keep them confidential . . . .[2] Three weeks after the second motion to compel, plaintiffs still had not produced more tapes, and their third counsel, Daniel Romano, moved to withdraw. On April 23, 2004, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiffs’ failure to obey discovery orders. The other major discovery problem involved financial and accounting documents. In April 2003, defendants served plaintiffs with a request to produce accounting records; when plaintiffs produced no such records, defendants moved to compel in September 2003. After hearing argument, on October 17, 2003, the district court ordered plaintiffs to tender all outstanding discovery, including accounting documents, by November 13, 2003. The court warned that it would dismiss the complaint if plaintiffs did not produce the documents. Plaintiffs still failed to produce the documents, so defendants again moved to compel on November 14 and 21, 2003. On December 9, 2003, Laurent admitted that plaintiffs had not timely produced all documents and he was aware of the order to do so. At a December 17, 2003, hearing, defendants submitted an affidavit wherein the accountant stated that plaintiffs had never given her the order directing production of her records, which she 2 Laurent’s references to other tapes cannot be construed to pertain to irrelevant tapes. Laurent never said he was talking about tapes that had nothing to do with plaintiffs’ claims and, layman or not, he could not reasonably believe he was being asked if plaintiffs had such tapes. It is not clear error to find that Laurent knew he was being asked about only relevant tapes and responded accordingly. If Laurent were referring to irrelevant tapes, why did his notes state, “additional tapes . . . will be made available to defendants as soon as possible”? And why would he imply that the other tapes would be produced if not for the supposed privilege? -8- Nos. 04-1798 / 04-2205 Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor still had. Plaintiffs stated that they could not produce those records because they were subject to a state-court protective order. The district judge instructed plaintiffs that it was their burden to ask the state court for permission to produce the records, and he gave plaintiffs another sixty days to produce them. The sixty days elapsed, and plaintiffs neither produced the records nor showed that they unsuccessfully sought permission to do so. On May 17, 2004, the district court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss. He articulated frustration with plaintiffs’ failure to obey discovery orders, despite numerous opportunities to do so: Okay. In this matter, the Court has – you know, I’ve done everything [I] could. I’ve bent over backwards . . . . To sit back and do nothing, to go through three lawyers, each lawyer saying about the same thing that they’re unable – the plaintiffs are unable or unwilling to cooperate, to do the things they need to do . . . . I think what’s happening is that the plaintiffs are whipsawing and – for what reason, I don’t know, I can’t tell you, but the Court is tired of it. And the Court has given the plaintiffs about as much warning as I possibly can. .... As I say, I don’t know what else I can do. When Mr. Wasinger was in this case, we had the problem. When Ms. Shecter was in this case, we had the problem. When Mr. Romano is in the case, we have the problem. It hasn’t gone away. The only way to make it go away is to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs have to suffer some kind of consequences for failure to follow the orders of the Court, and the court rules. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, stating, “I don’t know what else I can do. I’ve warned the plaintiffs. I’ve begged the plaintiffs. And – they just won’t do anything.” The court granted plaintiffs’ third counsel leave to withdraw and suggested that the failure to produce the requested items had been caused by plaintiffs, not their lawyers. In August 2004, the district court granted defendants’ fee petitions, awarding $82,220 to Taylor and $141,585 to Ferndale. Plaintiffs timely appealed, and their appeals were consolidated. -9- Nos. 04-1798 / 04-2205 Technology Recycling Corp. v. City of Taylor