Kohli v. Dayal
Kohli v. Dayal
2023 WL 11909037 (D. Nev. 2023)
July 28, 2023
Koppe, Nancy J., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The plaintiff filed a motion for case-dispositive discovery sanctions, claiming the defendants did not fully comply with a request for production of documents. The court previously denied the motion, but the plaintiff filed a renewed motion for sanctions. The court denied the motion, stating that there was not enough evidence to support it. The plaintiff then filed multiple renewed motions, which were all denied. The current motion is the fourth renewed motion, and the court construes it as a motion for reconsideration. The court ultimately denies the motion for sanctions.
ERIC KOHLI, Plaintiffs,
v.
AJAY G. DAYAL, et al., Defendant
v.
AJAY G. DAYAL, et al., Defendant
Case No. 2:20-cv-00538-CDS-NJK
United States District Court, D. Nevada
Filed July 28, 2023
Koppe, Nancy J., United States Magistrate Judge
Order
[Docket No. 121]
*1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's renewed motion for case-dispositive discovery sanctions. Docket No. 121. Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 128; see also Docket No. 130. Plaintiff filed replies. Docket Nos. 131, 132. The Court does not require a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
This is an employment case in which Plaintiff alleges he worked for Defendants from June 10, 2019, to July 24, 2019, but was not paid. See Docket No. 17. The case has a lengthy history, but the facts pertinent to the pending motion are relatively straightforward. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff propounded a request for production of documents seeking “all documents, emails, communications, written notes, and the like, that Plaintiff was associated with in any manner during the period of June 10, 2019, to July 24, 2019.” Docket No. 121-2 at 5 (“Request for Production No. 2”). On August 10, 2020, Defendants served a response to the request for production with various documents. Docket No. 121-13.
On August 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel arguing that the production made was deficient. Docket No. 26 at 8. Defendants did not file a response. On September 14, 2020, the Court granted the motion to compel as unopposed. Docket No. 27. The Court ordered Defendants to “fully respond” to the requests for production, including Request for Production No. 2, by September 29, 2020. Id. at 1. Defendants did not produce any further documents in response to that order. See Docket No. 121-1 at ¶ 13.
On October 4, 2020, Plaintiff moved for an order to show cause. Docket No. 29. On December 21, 2020, the Court again ordered Defendants to respond to the requests for production, including Request for Production No. 2. See Docket No. 39; see also Docket No. 121-4 at 13. The Court did not therein find that documents had not been produced, but rather that a written response must be served making Defendants’ position clear. See Docket No. 121-4 at 14 (“if you don't have any other documents, then you just have to say you don't have the documents in the ... written response”). The Court denied the motion for an order to show cause. Id.[1]
On January 8, 2021, Defendants served a supplemental response to the requests for production. Docket No. 121-6. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff moved again for an order to show cause seeking sanctions. Docket No. 42 at 1, 6-8. Plaintiff argued that all responsive documents had not been produced with respect to Request for Production No. 2. See, e.g., id. at 3-4. Plaintiff argued that the circumstances warranted entry of “strong sanctions,” id. at 5, including potentially entering default judgment, ordering that certain matters be taken as established fact for purposes of this case, and awarding fees and costs, id. at 6-8. Defendants failed to respond to the motion.[2] On February 2, 2021, the Court granted in part the motion for an order to show cause as unopposed. Docket No. 44 at 2-3. On March 15, 2021, Defendants filed a written response indicating that, inter alia, they had appropriately responded to discovery, including with supplementation. Docket No. 52.
*2 On April 19, 2021, the Court held the show cause hearing to determine whether to impose the sanctions Plaintiff had sought. See Docket No. 56. At the hearing, defense counsel represented that all responsive documents had been provided. See, e.g., Docket No. 113 at 4. Plaintiff countered that the production was deficient given that he thought there should be more than 200 responsive documents, id. at 6, and that he knew of the missing documents since he was “instrumental in creating them during the term of [his] employment,” id. at 7. In weighing those competing representations, the Court refused to impose sanctions, explaining that:
So, Mr. Kohli, you know at this point, you know and this comes up, I mean, the parties say we've given you everything we have, you say there must be more. There is not a lot I can do about that at this stage. One thing of course is they can't come up with these documents later in the case and somehow use them. You could keep any such documents out. I realize you are saying, well, that they are keeping out the documents that hurt them and giving me the documents that help me [sic]. You know, you're going to have to work this case through further down the road if necessary. But for now, I'm going to exonerate the order to show cause. The sanctions have been paid. The discovery has been supplemented. So, the OSC's discharged.
Docket No. 113 at 8-9. In short, the Court determined that Defendants were not in violation of the Court's order to produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 2 and, as a result, that the sanctions Plaintiff sought would not be imposed.
On November 5, 2021, the Court held a status conference at which Plaintiff referenced that he had not received discovery that had been ordered. Docket No. 121-11 at 5. The Court declined to address the issue from the bench and instructed Plaintiff to file a motion. Id. On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions based on discovery non-compliance. Docket No. 78. Following a settlement conference, the case was reassigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. Docket No. 90. On July 22, 2022, the motion for sanctions was denied without prejudice as disorganized and insufficiently developed. Docket No. 91.[3] On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second renewed motion for sanctions. Docket No. 94. On December 14, 2022, the Court again denied that motion as disorganized and insufficiently developed. Docket No. 103. On March 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a third renewed motion for sanctions. Docket No. 121. Following the appearance of new defense counsel, this latest motion became ripe on June 12, 2023, and is the matter currently before the Court.
II. STANDARDS
Regardless of how they are framed by counsel, motions seeking relief that was previously denied are properly treated as seeking reconsideration. See, e.g., Bull v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 758 F. Supp. 2d 925, 932 n.7 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b). “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (citation and internal quotations omitted). The Local Rules provide the applicable standards for addressing whether the Court should reconsider an interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). A motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle to repeat the same arguments that were already rejected in the hopes of a different outcome. See also Local Rule 59-1(b).
III. ANALYSIS
*3 Through the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks the imposition of sanctions based on alleged deficiencies in Defendants’ response to Request for Production No. 2 despite prior orders requiring supplementation. Docket No. 121 at 6-7. Although a bit scattershot, Plaintiff is effectively seeking entry of default judgment or an order that certain matters be deemed established for purposes of this case, and awarding fees and costs. See Docket No. 121 at 10-18; see also Docket No. 131 at 7-8. The Court previously denied that same request. See Section I; see also Docket No. 113 at 8-9. As such, the Court construes the motion as seeking reconsideration.[4]
Plaintiff has not established sufficient grounds for reconsideration. The motion rehashes the prior arguments raised.[5] At bottom, Plaintiff argues that Defendants violated the orders to fully respond to Request for Production No. 2 because Plaintiff believes there should have been over 200 documents produced based on his personal involvement in creating those documents. See, e.g., Docket No. 121 at 6-7. The Court already considered these very same arguments and refused to impose sanctions on Defendants. Docket No. 113 at 4-9.[6] As such, reconsideration is not warranted. Local Rule 59-1(b).[7]
IV. CONCLUSION
*4 For the reasons discussed more fully above, Plaintiff's renewed motion for case-dispositive discovery sanctions is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
At the same hearing, the Court imposed on Mr. Dayal a fine of $500 related to deposition issues. See Docket No. 121-4 at 20. That sanction was imposed in relation to the motion for sanctions at Docket No. 35.
Defendant Dayal had also failed to pay the prior sanction of $500. Docket No. 44 at 2.
Plaintiff's filings are not entitled to special leniency despite his decision not to hire an attorney because Plaintiff himself is an attorney. Crockett v. Cal., 2012 WL 2153801, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2012); see also Andrews v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 544 F.3d 618, 633 (6th Cir. 2008); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007); Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 82 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Godlove v. Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald, and Hahn, 903 F.2d 1145, 1148 (7th Cir. 1990); Olivares v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192, 1194 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977).
Neither current defense counsel nor the undersigned participated in the hearing at which this same request was previously denied. See Docket No. 113 at 1-2. Moreover, Plaintiff did not attach the subject transcript to his motion. While the parties did not address whether the current request is properly construed as seeking reconsideration in light of that prior ruling from the bench, the Court has a duty to correctly articulate and apply legal standards. Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff makes much of the fact that he raised this issue at a status conference and was told to file a motion. See Docket No. 121-1 at ¶ 24. At that status conference, Plaintiff did not inform the Court that he had already sought the same sanctions based on the same arguments. See Docket No. 121-11 at 5-6. At any rate, the fact that a court instructs that a motion may be filed is not an expression of confidence that the forthcoming motion will be granted. Mkhitaryan v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 211091, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 18, 2013).
The Court previously left open the door slightly for Plaintiff to seek further relief as the case developed, pointing specifically to the potential exclusion of documents Defendants produced thereafter that were helpful to the defense. Docket No. 113 at 8. The Court does not understand the prior order as allowing for a renewed motion based on the same arguments that were already rejected seeking the same sanctions that were already denied.
Plaintiff argues in reply that Defendants’ further search for responsive documents and supplemental production shows that Defendants “have been lying” this whole time about producing all responsive documents. Docket No. 131 at 4-5. Although Defendants made the supplemental response in conjunction with filing their responsive brief, Defendants have not had an opportunity to address Plaintiff's argument raised in reply that was premised on that supplementation. Particularly given the significant relief being sought in the form of case-dispositive sanctions, the Court declines to consider an argument Plaintiff raised for the first time in reply. Cf. Brand v. Kijakazi, 575 F. Supp. 3d 1265, 1273 (D. Nev. 2021). Moreover and significantly, the reply does not even specify what portion of the recent supplementation is newly disclosed and it is clear that at least some of the supplementation is duplicative of earlier productions. See Docket No.1 31 at 5 (asserting vaguely that “most” of the supplementation is “new”). The Court also declines to address this argument since it was raised without meaningful development. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013).