Bhagat v. Anuja Sharad Shah

Background

The court had previously ordered the defendant’s computer-forensics expert to attend a one-hour deposition so Bhagat could question the expert about the documents underlying the expert’s opinion. After the deposition on October 15, 2025, the defendant moved for sanctions, arguing that Bhagat’s statements at the deposition contradicted his earlier representations to the court about being unable to review documents in their original folders. The court previously denied that sanctions motion without prejudice to refiling after the defendant provided a complete transcript. The defendant then renewed the motion and submitted the deposition transcript.

Defendant’s sanctions motion

The court reviewed the transcript and disagreed that the deposition showed bad faith or intentional time-wasting. Instead, the deposition showed that the defendant’s original production of the documents used by the expert was incomplete. The court identified missing versions of certain documents and evidence that the expert’s script had overwritten some files with the same names. The court therefore denied the defendant’s renewed motion for sanctions.

Bhagat’s motion to compel

Bhagat moved to compel production of several categories of documents discussed during the expert’s deposition. The court noted that, during the deposition, he had specifically requested only the “four versions” on which the expert relied and minimal labeling so the documents could be uniquely identified. Bhagat had not requested the additional materials during the deposition and had not explained why they were necessary. The court granted in part Bhagat’s motion to compel: if the defendant had not already provided the four versions with appropriate labeling, she was required to do so by November 26, 2025. The court otherwise denied the motion to compel.

Bhagat’s sanctions motion

Bhagat also sought sanctions requiring the defendant to pay the costs of the expert’s deposition. The court explained that it has inherent authority—the power to address conduct that abuses the judicial process—to impose an appropriate sanction. It found, however, that Bhagat had not shown that the defendant abused the judicial process regarding the expert’s document production. The court described the problem as an error in the production that the expert explained and that had been corrected or would shortly be corrected. The court therefore denied Bhagat’s motion for sanctions.

Effect of the order

The order required only the specified, labeled document production if it had not already occurred. It did not impose sanctions on either party.