Sinco Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Sinco Electronics Co. Ltd.

Background

Former counsel for Defendants, Jeffrey L. Fazio, represented himself in seeking relief from Magistrate Judge Spero’s September 3, 2019 nondispositive pretrial order. That order imposed $1,500 in sanctions against Fazio in his individual capacity for violating the Protective Order.

The Protective Order gave the party or non-party sponsoring, offering, or giving deposition testimony a period to identify testimony as confidential. Fazio produced excerpts of a deposition transcript in the public record before Plaintiff had the opportunity to identify confidential information. Judge Spero later ruled that the information had been properly designated as confidential.

Court’s Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive ruling only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing judge is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.

Judge Chen concluded that Fazio had not met that standard. The opinion states that there was no dispute Fazio violated the Protective Order. It also notes that Judge Spero specifically found Fazio and Defendants acted in bad faith by disclosing information that appeared sensitive and potentially confidential without first allowing Plaintiff to seek protection under the Protective Order.

Judge Chen rejected Fazio’s argument that his belief that the deposition topic was publicly available excused the violation. The court explained that this belief did not excuse his failure to give Plaintiff an opportunity to seek protection under the Protective Order.

Disposition

Judge Chen denied Fazio’s motion for relief from Judge Spero’s order. The order required Fazio to pay $1,500 from his personal funds to Plaintiff within 30 days and stated that it disposed of Docket No. 263.