Rennenger v. Aquawood, LLC
Rennenger v. Aquawood, LLC
2023 WL 7101874 (S.D. Iowa 2023)
June 27, 2023
Jackson Jr., Stephen B., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court granted in part motions to compel production of documents and interrogatory answers from the Hong Kong Defendants. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide a privilege log, which they did, and the Court denied the Hong Kong Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37(b). The ESI in this case was the privilege log, which listed the documents that were being withheld as privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material.
Additional Decisions
DANIELLE RENNENGER, Plaintiff,
v.
AQUAWOOD, LLC; BANZAI INTERNATIONAL LTD.; CHAN MING YIU a/k/a SAMSON CHAN; CHAN SIU LUN a/k/a ALAN CHAN; DOLLAR EMPIRE LLC; BRIAN DUBINSKY; LIU YI MAN a/k/a LISA LIU; MANLEY TOY DIRECT, LLC a/k/a WORLDWIDE TOY DIRECT; MGS INTERNATIONAL, LLC; PARK LANE SOLUTIONS LTD; RICHARD TOTH; TOY NETWORK, LLC; TOY NETWORK HONG KONG; TOY QUEST LTD.; and MICHAEL WU, Defendants
v.
AQUAWOOD, LLC; BANZAI INTERNATIONAL LTD.; CHAN MING YIU a/k/a SAMSON CHAN; CHAN SIU LUN a/k/a ALAN CHAN; DOLLAR EMPIRE LLC; BRIAN DUBINSKY; LIU YI MAN a/k/a LISA LIU; MANLEY TOY DIRECT, LLC a/k/a WORLDWIDE TOY DIRECT; MGS INTERNATIONAL, LLC; PARK LANE SOLUTIONS LTD; RICHARD TOTH; TOY NETWORK, LLC; TOY NETWORK HONG KONG; TOY QUEST LTD.; and MICHAEL WU, Defendants
CIVIL NO. 4:19-cv-00123-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00131-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00132-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00134-RGE-SBJ, 4:19-cv-00135-RGE-SBJ
United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division
Filed June 27, 2023
Counsel
Bruce E. Johnson, Robert C. Gainer, Cutler Law Firm PC, West Des Moines, IA, August J. Matteis, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Kate M. Geyer, Pro Hac Vice, Shelli L. Calland, Pro Hac Vice, Sophia Golvach, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen A. Weisbrod, Pro Hac Vice, Tamra Ferguson, I, Pro Hac Vice, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Washington, DC, Jennifer Ruiz, Pro Hac Vice, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff Danielle Rennenger in No. 4:19-cv-00123.Matthew David Callanan, Brad R. Pollock, Michael R. Reck, Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Defendants Aquawood, L.L.C., Dollar Empire LLC, Brian Dubinsky, Michael Wu in No. 4:19-cv-00123.
Brandon Robert Underwood, Bridget R. Penick, Devan C. Rittler-Patton, Elizabeth N. Thomson, Michael Darrell Currie, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. (DSM), Des Moines, IA, Matthew David Callanan, Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Defendants Ming Yiu Chan, Siu Lun Chan, Yi Man Liu in No. 4:19-cv-00123.
Alexander Edward Wonio, William D. Scherle, Hansen McClintock & Riley, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants MGS International LLC, Richard Toth in Nos. 4:19-cv-00123, 4:19-cv-00131, 4:19-cv-00132, 4:19-cv-00134, 4:19-cv-00135.
Bruce E. Johnson, Robert C. Gainer, Cutler Law Firm PC, West Des Moines, IA, August J. Matteis, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Kate M. Geyer, Pro Hac Vice, Shelli L. Calland, Pro Hac Vice, Sophia Golvach, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen A. Weisbrod, Pro Hac Vice, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Washington, DC, Jennifer Ruiz, Pro Hac Vice, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Ammee Roush in No. 4:19-cv-00131, Robin Lynn Drake in No. 4:19-cv-00132, Heather Miller in No. 4:19-cv-00134, Tammie Ackelson in No. 4:19-cv-00135.
Matthew David Callanan, Brad R. Pollock, Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, IA, for Defendants Aquawood, L.L.C., Dollar Empire LLC, Brian Dubinsky, Michael Wu in Nos. 4:19-cv-00131, 4:19-cv-00132, 4:19-cv-00134, 4:19-cv-00135.
Brandon Robert Underwood, Elizabeth N. Thomson, Bridget R. Penick, Michael Darrell Currie, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. (DSM), Des Moines, IA, for Defendants Ming Yiu Chan, Siu Lun Chan, Yi Man Liu in Nos. 4:19-cv-00131, 4:19-cv-00132, 4:19-cv-00134, 4:19-cv-00135.
Jackson Jr., Stephen B., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 In an Order (Dkt. 289) entered on January 26, 2023, the Court granted in part motions to compel production of documents and interrogatory answers filed by defendants Samson Chan, Alan Chan, Lisa Liu, Toy Quest, Ltd., Park Lane Solutions, Ltd., and Banzai International (“Hong Kong Defendants”). Plaintiffs were ordered to serve supplemental interrogatory answers and produce responsive documents as directed by February 17, 2023. Id. p. 14. Within the text of the Order addressing the discovery disputes at issue, the Court repeatedly instructed as follows: “If any materials are withheld as privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, Plaintiffs must adhere to the requirements of [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(b)(5)(A) by providing the Hong Kong Defendants with an appropriate privilege log.” Id. pp. 6, 8, 9-10.
Now before the Court is a Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37(b) (Dkt. 301) filed by the Hong Kong Defendants on May 18, 2023. According to the Hong Kong Defendants, “[d]espite nearly four months passing,” Plaintiffs had not yet provided a privilege log and “are defying this Court's discovery order.” Dkt. 301-1 pp. 2, 3. It is further represented:
Counsel for the Hong Kong Defendants attempted to confer in good faith with Plaintiffs' counsel. Counsel for the Hong Kong Defendants repeatedly offered availability to confer about this dispute. In addition, on May 15 and May 18, 2023, undersigned counsel sent correspondence demanding the privilege log. As of this filing, counsel for Plaintiffs failed to respond.
Dkt. 301 ¶ 8. They contend the Court should sanction Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), “deem the attorney–client privilege waived, and order Plaintiffs to pay the Hong Kong Defendants' fees and costs incurred.” Dkt. 301-1 pp. 2-3.
Plaintiffs filed a Resistance (Dkt. 319) on June 9, 2023, and attached thereto “Plaintiffs' First Privilege Log.” (Dkt. 319-2). They present a different version of the dispute:
In compliance with the Court's January 26, 2023 Order (ECF 289), Plaintiffs have been trying for weeks to talk with the HK Defendants about establishing an efficient and mutually beneficial privilege logging protocol that satisfies Rule 26 but takes into account the fact that all parties in these cases have a huge number of obviously privileged documents. Plaintiffs proposed that the parties use categorical logs, which courts routinely endorse in similar situations. The HK Defendants would not discuss the substance of Plaintiffs' proposal. The HK Defendants also would not discuss their plans for their own logs.
Dkt. 319 p. 1. Plaintiffs further explain that “[n]ow that the HK Defendants have totally rejected Plaintiffs' efforts to reach or even discuss an agreement on logs, Plaintiffs have gone ahead and submitted a categorical privilege log with this Resistance.” Id. They further maintain there is no basis to impose Rule 37 sanctions because the Court's Order “did not set any deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their log.” Id.
*2 The Hong Kong Defendants filed a Reply (Dkt. 322) asserting “Plaintiffs' unilateral decision to attach a generic categorical privilege log to their resistance to Defendants' sanctions motion [does not excuse] their disobedience of this Court's order.” Id. p. 1. From their perspective, “the Court's Order plainly contemplated that Plaintiffs would provide a log when they provided their responses.” Id. p. 3. They further maintain “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 unambiguously requires a party to serve its privilege log “ ‘[w]hen a party withholds information otherwise discoverable.’ ” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)).
The Court considers the motion to be fully submitted. Oral argument by counsel is not necessary. L.R. 7(c). Pursuant to Rule 37(b), the Court “may issue further just orders” when a party “fails to obey an order to provide discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). After consideration of the parties' submissions and counsel's representations therein, the Court concludes sanctions under Rule 37(b) as requested by the Hong Kong Defendants are not warranted. The Hong Kong Defendants are correct that the Court contemplated Plaintiffs would provide a privilege log when they provided their discovery responses, or at least reasonably thereafter. On the other hand, Plaintiffs are also correct, technically, that the Order did not explicitly state as such or otherwise provide a date certain for producing a privilege log. As such, Plaintiffs did not “fail to obey” the Order.
The Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37(b) (Dkt. 301) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.