Donnelly v. ANAND

Background

Brian Donnelly and KAWS Inc. brought claims under the Lanham Act, a federal trademark statute, and a copyright-infringement claim under the Copyright Act. The complaint alleged that Jonathan Anand, individually and doing business as five entities, marketed and sold products that infringed and diluted the plaintiffs’ trademarks, including counterfeit products.

The plaintiffs served document requests and interrogatories in March 2023. The court found that Anand’s responses were evasive, contradictory, incomplete, and lacking meaningful detail. Anand produced no documents. His responses included unexplained answers of “No” or “Not Applicable,” failed to identify requested information, and did not meaningfully address questions about his business activities, sales, products, websites, and related matters.

In July 2023, the court ordered Anand to produce responsive documents or submit a legally compliant sworn statement describing where he searched for them. The court also ordered him to provide complete responses to Interrogatories 3 through 21. The order expressly warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including striking his answer and entering default judgment.

Continued Noncompliance

Anand supplemented only some of the required interrogatory responses. The court found those responses evasive and incomplete because they addressed present activities while failing to answer questions about past activities. Anand again produced no documents and gave no meaningful details about his claimed efforts to locate them.

The court also found inconsistencies in Anand’s descriptions of his role. Earlier statements described him as a retail reseller who ordered and sold products through his website. Later statements characterized his role as limited marketing work and denied responsibility for ordering products or managing the businesses. The court concluded that his sustained failure to comply supported a finding of willful noncompliance.

Anand’s attorney represented him from March 2022 until the court granted the attorney’s withdrawal in April 2025. Anand later opposed the sanctions motion without a lawyer, citing bankruptcy, relocation to China, technical and personal difficulties, and personal turmoil. The court accepted those accounts for purposes of analysis but determined that they did not excuse his repeated failure to comply with the discovery order. Anand also did not appear at a trial in a related adversary proceeding after receiving notice; the court cited that failure as additional support for its conclusion that severe sanctions were warranted.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits sanctions when a party fails to obey a discovery order. Available sanctions include striking pleadings and entering default judgment. The court considered the willfulness of Anand’s conduct, whether lesser sanctions would work, the length of the noncompliance, and whether Anand had been warned about the consequences.

The court concluded that all of those considerations supported severe sanctions. Anand had not complied with the July 2023 order for an extended period, continued to provide vague and incomplete responses, produced no documents, and failed to propose a way to cure the violations. Because an explicit warning had not brought him into compliance, the court found that lesser sanctions would not be effective.

Disposition

Judge P. Castel granted the plaintiffs’ sanctions motion. The court struck Anand’s Answer and Amended Answer and directed the Clerk of Court to enter default judgment against Jonathan Anand as to liability. This order did not set the amount of damages or grant specific additional relief.

The court also ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the discovery violations and related motion practice. The plaintiffs had not yet submitted the documentation needed to establish the amount, so the court ordered them to file a supported fee-and-cost application and allowed Anand to respond.

The plaintiffs were also ordered to submit their proposed damages and any other requested relief. Anand was given an opportunity to respond to those submissions. The order therefore resolved liability through sanctions but left damages, other relief, and the amount of fees and costs for later proceedings.