MPHASIS Corporation v. Rojas

Background

This order addressed the parties’ responses to an order requiring Albert Rojas to explain why he should not be sanctioned. On May 15, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang ordered Rojas to bring his personal laptop to the courthouse on May 29 for forensic imaging. The order was intended to facilitate Rojas’s compliance with Paragraph 6 of a temporary restraining order entered by Judge Jesse Furman, which required Rojas to cooperate fully with a neutral forensic examiner selected by MPHASIS to examine his personal Mac computer and related accounts, software, and hardware.

Rojas appeared at the courthouse on May 29 but brought none of the devices required by the imaging order. As a result, MPHASIS could not complete the imaging and incurred costs for arranging for a forensic examiner to travel to and wait at the courthouse. Judge Wang then directed Rojas to show cause—meaning to explain why sanctions should not be imposed—for failing to bring the devices.

The Court’s Analysis

The court found that Rojas violated both the imaging order and Paragraph 6 of the temporary restraining order. It rejected his argument that he acted in good faith or offered reasonable cooperation. The court explained that appearing without the computer to be imaged could not constitute compliance with an order requiring the computer’s production.

The court also rejected Rojas’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment arguments. It stated that the Fourth Amendment objections concerned the scope of the search and that the criminal-case authorities cited by Rojas did not prevent the requested civil discovery. Regarding the Fifth Amendment, the court explained that invoking the privilege in a civil case can result in adverse inferences—unfavorable conclusions drawn from withheld information—and does not automatically excuse failure to comply with court orders.

The court further rejected Rojas’s reliance on federal whistleblower statutes, including provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Defend Our Trade Secrets Act. It explained that those laws may provide claims for retaliation against qualifying whistleblowers, but do not create a privilege allowing a litigant to refuse civil discovery. The court stated that whether whistleblower protections applied to Rojas’s termination was irrelevant to his failure to comply with the imaging order.

Sanctions and Disposition

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 allows sanctions, including sanctions authorized by Rule 37, when a party fails to obey a pretrial order. The court found compensatory monetary sanctions appropriate because Rojas’s noncompliance caused MPHASIS to incur costs.

MPHASIS submitted records showing $3,510 for 6.5 hours of attorney time, with no separate attorney expenses. It also submitted a $5,684.41 forensic-examination invoice, consisting of billed time and travel expenses. The court found the hours and rates reasonable. The combined total was $9,194.41, including $7,725 in billed time and $1,469.41 in expenses.

Judge Ona T. Wang ordered Rojas to pay MPHASIS compensatory monetary sanctions of $9,194.41 no later than September 30, 2025.