Capers v. BSREP UA 3333 Broadway LLC

Background

The court addressed Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions based on Defendants’ counsel’s failure to comply with the court’s September 22, 2025 discovery order. That order required Defendants’ counsel to provide specified documents to Plaintiff’s counsel by September 30, 2025, and extended the close of fact discovery to November 21, 2025. The documents had previously been requested and had been the subject of repeated disputes and court conferences.

On October 13, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the court that none of the required disclosures had been made by the deadline. Defendants’ counsel did not dispute that point. Instead, he stated that he had sent Plaintiff’s counsel a proposed confidentiality order on September 30, that Plaintiff’s counsel returned it on October 3, and that he expected to provide a response by October 16. The proposed confidentiality order was not submitted to the court for approval until October 14.

Legal standard and analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) permits sanctions against a party or attorney who fails to comply with a discovery order. The court considered the factors used to evaluate such sanctions: the reason for noncompliance, whether lesser sanctions would be effective, the duration of noncompliance, and whether the party had been warned about the consequences.

The court found that Defendants’ counsel had violated a clear discovery order. It rejected the explanation that the confidentiality-order process excused the failure to produce the documents, explaining that the order required production by September 30 and did not permit Defendants’ counsel to wait until that date to propose a different arrangement. The court also found that lesser sanctions were insufficient in light of the repeated discovery disputes, prior court intervention, missed deadlines, and continuing failure to comply.

The court concluded that the duration of the noncompliance supported sanctions because two weeks had passed since the deadline, following earlier delays in producing the documents. Although the court had not expressly warned that violating this specific order would result in sanctions, it had repeatedly directed the parties to meet deadlines and fulfill their professional obligations. The court determined that the other factors supported sanctions and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary because there were no material factual disputes affecting the decision.

Ruling

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the motion for sanctions. The court ordered Defendants to turn over the materials identified in the September 22 order within 24 hours after the sanctions order was docketed.

The court also imposed sanctions against Defendants and their counsel, Mr. Haydn J. Brill, payable to Plaintiff. Their responsibility was joint and several, meaning the obligation could be enforced against either or both for the full amount. They were required to pay $200 for every day after the 24-hour deadline that Defendants’ counsel had not provided all materials required by the September 22 order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 99.