Kwoka v. DAngelo

Background

The defendant sought discovery sanctions against the plaintiffs. The request was presented in a letter claiming that Mr. Gebski had not adequately responded to six discovery demands. The demands concerned, among other things, the plaintiffs’ claimed damages of more than $3 million, evidence of an oral operating agreement for Esme Designs, services allegedly performed by Mr. Kwoka after July 2019, payment of a booth at a March 2024 bridal trade show in Chicago, an alleged agreement to divide that booth’s use or expense 75% to Mr. Kwoka and 25% to Ms. D’Angelo, and how the “Shop Esme” website address was obtained.

The defendant asserted that some electronic folders could not be opened because they displayed “Access Denied.” The defendant also asserted that other referenced documents, including financial records, bank and credit-card statements, a domain-purchase receipt, correspondence, and an audio recording, were missing or could not be located. Affidavits from Aaron Sullivan and Nick Edelstein were submitted about the inaccessible or unidentified materials.

Requested sanctions

The defendant asked the court to preclude, meaning bar, the plaintiffs from introducing evidence about their damages, the existence of an oral operating agreement, payment for the Chicago trade-show booth, and the alleged 75/25 booth-sharing agreement. The defendant also requested an adverse inference, meaning a negative conclusion based on evidence that the defendant said had not been produced. The request relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26’s disclosure requirements and Rule 37’s provision concerning exclusion of undisclosed evidence.

Ruling

Judge Subramanian denied the motion for failure to comply with the court’s individual practices, including the requirement to meet and confer with opposing counsel about issues such as these. The order did not impose the requested preclusion or adverse-inference sanctions.

The court added that, in any event, the motion would be denied at that point. It recognized that the defendant had raised serious disclosure issues concerning the plaintiffs’ case, but stated that it would determine the appropriate remedy after reviewing the parties’ summary-judgment motions. The court explained that if a plaintiff had failed to identify, as required by Rule 26, the witnesses, documents, or damages calculations it intended to rely on at trial, that evidence would not be considered in deciding whether the plaintiff could avoid summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 118.