Tarvisium Holdings, LLC v. Dukat, LLC
Tarvisium Holdings, LLC v. Dukat, LLC
2020 WL 12688135 (W.D. Mo. 2020)
February 7, 2020
Kays, Greg, United States District Judge
Summary
The Court ordered Defendants to produce ESI by January 17, 2020, and warned of potential sanctions if they failed to comply. The Court denied Defendants' motion for reconsideration and warned that if they have not fully complied by February 14, 2020, additional sanctions may be imposed, including striking their pleadings and entering default judgment.
Additional Decisions
TARVISIUM HOLDINGS, LLC, and 45N12E, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKAT, LLC, 36LOWER, INC., ELLIOTT KATTAN, and BEN SCHWARTZ, Defendants
v.
DUKAT, LLC, 36LOWER, INC., ELLIOTT KATTAN, and BEN SCHWARTZ, Defendants
No. 4:19-CV-0086-DGK
United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
Filed February 07, 2020
Counsel
R. Todd Ehlert, Brett C. Randol, Joel Henry Driskell, Rouse Frets White Goss Gentile Rhodes, PC, Leawood, KS, for Plaintiffs Tarvisium Holdings, LLC, 45N12E, LLC.36Lower, Inc., Teaneck, NJ, Pro Se.
Dukat, LLC, Edison, NJ, Pro Se.
Ben Schwartz, Teaneck, NJ, Pro Se.
Elliott Kattan, Oakhurst, NJ, Pro Se.
Anne M. Zimmermann, Aegis Law, Frontenac, MO, Sheldon D. Korlin, Aegis Law, St. Louis, MO, Brett B. Caban, Des Peres, MO, Cassandra R. Wait, Jennifer L. Berhorst, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Robert M. Thompson, Bryan Cave, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants Dukat, LLC, 36Lower, Inc., Elliott Kattan, Ben Schwartz.
Kays, Greg, United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
*1 This lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs' purchase of an e-Commerce business, Essential Hardware, from Defendant Dukat, LLC. Now before the Court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. 80) of the Court's January 10, 2020, Order compelling Defendants to provide certain discovery by January 17 and to pay Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing two motions to compel.
After carefully reviewing the motion to reconsider, the Court finds it raises no facts or arguments that were not previously considered by the Court, nor does the January 10th Order contain any manifest error. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Court also observes that it is somewhat unclear from Defendants' briefing how close they are to complying with the January 10th Order. Their filings suggest they are attempting to comply, but are unsure of when they produce all the responsive discovery, suggesting it will be “late this week or early next week.” Reply Br. at 3 (Doc. 83).
The January 10th Order mandated Defendants produce the responsive discovery by January 17, 2020. Filing the motion for reconsideration did not toll compliance with this order. The Eighth Circuit has observed that discovery abuse is a “widespread concern in the legal community” and preventing such abuse depends in part on judges being willing to impose them. Security Nat. Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Day, 800 F.3d 936, 942 (8th Cir. 2015). Where, as here, the record justifies the imposition of sanctions, sanctions are appropriate to penalize and “ ‘deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.’ ” Id. (quoting Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976)).
The Court cautions that if Defendants have not fully complied with the January 10th Order by February 14, 2020, the Court may impose additional sanctions on them, up to and including striking their pleadings and entering default judgment against them. The Court may also impose monetary sanctions on defense counsel, both individually and their firm.
IT IS SO ORDERED.