Opinion
No. 02 Civ. 4911 (HB) (HBP).
June 20, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
By notice of motion dated June 4, 2004 (Docket Item 418), plaintiffs move to vacate my Order dated May 4, 2004 ("May 4 Order") (Docket Item 394) which imposed a sanction on plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $25,000 as a result of plaintiffs' failure to comply with discovery orders concerning interrogatories served by defendants Click Model Management ("Click") and Next Management Company ("Next"). The motion has been referred to me by the Honorable Harold Baer, United States District Judge, to whom this matter is assigned.
Although plaintiffs' motion is unopposed, the motion lacks merit. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to vacate my May 4 Order is denied in all respects.
II. Facts
Prior to its being settled, this was an anti-trust class action in which plaintiffs alleged, in principal part, that defendants conspired to fix prices in the modeling industry. The allegations and principal defenses are set forth in Judge Baer's opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, familiarity with which is assumed. Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 02 Civ. 4911 (HB), 2004 WL 594396 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2004).
The facts underlying my May 4 Order are set forth in detail in that Order. In short, my May 4 Order was the result of a series of failures by plaintiffs to comply with my Orders directing that certain interrogatories be answered. No purpose would be served by repeating here all of the misconduct that resulted in my May 4 Order. At this point it is sufficient to note that plaintiffs, by their counsel, repeatedly failed to comply with Orders directing that interrogatories be answered, provided contradictory sets of interrogatory answers with no explanation and provided interrogatory answers that were unquestionably designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate, notwithstanding an earlier Order directing that the interrogatories be answered.
After the present motion was assigned to me, I reviewed the file and discovered that no opposition by defendants had been filed. At my request, my Deputy Clerk called defendants' counsel to ensure that there was no opposition. Defendants' counsel advised that, as part of the settlement agreement and in response to a request from plaintiffs' counsel, defendants' counsel had agreed not to oppose plaintiffs' motion.
III. Analysis
Plaintiffs make no argument that my May 4 Order was factually' or legally deficient in any respect. Rather, plaintiffs argue that the matter is now settled and, therefore, the sanction imposed in my May 4 Order — a $25,000 sanction payable to the Clerk of the Court — serves no purpose. Plaintiffs are wrong.
Lawsuits are not games. A lawsuit is supposed to be a "search for truth," Polaroid Corp. v. Casselman, 213 F. Supp. 379, 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), in which Court Orders are to be scrupulously obeyed. Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 853 (2d Cir. 1995) ("[D]iscovery orders are meant to be followed. `A party who flouts such orders does so at his peril.'")
As explained in my May 4 Order, the conduct of plaintiffs' counsel here unnecessarily wasted the Court's time. Because of plaintiffs' "shell game" approach to discovery, both the Court and, no doubt, defense counsel were forced to spend hours in an effort to determine whether an interrogatory had been answered. Such behavior by plaintiffs' counsel does not meet professional standards and cannot go unpunished. If anything, vacating the sanction would suggest to counsel that any tactic, regardless of how much judicial time is wasted, is permissible so long as the case ends by settlement. The settlement of a case does not undo misconduct that preceded the settlement.
Tactics that waste judicial time are pernicious not only because of the direct burden they put on the judge, but also because of the unnecessary delay they cause to other litigants.
Finally, the settlement does not lessen the general and specific deterrent effects of the sanction. Hopefully in their next case, plaintiffs' counsel will not engage in the same behavior they displayed here.
In short, apart from the settlement, plaintiffs offer no good reason why my May 4 Order should be vacated. Since the settlement does not provide good reason for vacatur, plaintiffs' motion is denied in all respects.
IV. Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion to vacate my May 4 Order (Docket Item 394) is denied in all respects. No later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, plaintiffs' counsel shall pay the Clerk of the Court the sum of $25,000. The burden of this sanction shall be borne exclusively by plaintiffs' counsel and shall not be taxed to plaintiffs themselves nor shall it be a taxable cost.
SO ORDERED.