Chevron Products Company v. Advanced Corrosion Technologies & Training, LLC

Background

In late December 2023, David A. Ericksen filed three motions for Advanced Corrosion Technologies & Training, LLC (ACTT): a motion for summary judgment, a motion for sanctions based on alleged evidence destruction, and a motion to exclude readings from a site inspection. At the hearing, the court identified numerous misleading aspects of the briefing and supporting filings. Chevron later sought attorneys’ fees for responding to the two discovery-related motions, but withdrew that request after the parties reported a tentative settlement of the case.

Because of the conduct described in Chevron’s fee request and observed by the court, the court ordered Ericksen to explain why he should not be sanctioned. The court received Ericksen’s filing, Chevron’s response, and testimony through Ericksen’s counsel at a hearing.

Misleading affidavit

The sanctions order focused on Ericksen’s sworn affidavit supporting ACTT’s motion to exclude readings. The court said the affidavit was not the only misleading conduct, but found it to be the most serious example. The affidavit stated or suggested that discovery negotiations about a refinery site inspection occurred through numerous telephone calls, that Chevron had led ACTT on for months about training, that Chevron’s entry requirements were unclear, and that ACTT personnel had tried to comply with them before the scheduled inspection. The court found that the email evidence contradicted these descriptions and that Ericksen could not identify the relevant calls, participants, dates, or subjects.

The affidavit also suggested that Chevron refused ACTT access after ACTT complied with training requirements and before Chevron’s maintenance work began. The court found that no such period existed because Chevron had said the maintenance work would begin in May, while ACTT did not tell Chevron that its expert had completed training until June. The affidavit further stated that Chevron had represented it would not remove or replace disputed components before giving ACTT access. The court found no such representation in the emails.

Finally, Ericksen stated that Chevron’s counsel had advised ACTT that it would receive a hot-work permit for the September inspection and had assured ACTT that one would be provided. The court found that Chevron had made no such promise. The court also found that Ericksen’s later explanations did not justify the affidavit’s wording, even if his explanations reflected his personal understanding of the communications.

Court’s findings

The court found that the misrepresentations were made in bad faith. It relied on the differences between the affidavit and the email evidence, Ericksen’s failure to submit the emails with the affidavit, and his conduct after Chevron sent a letter challenging the statements and attached the relevant emails to its opposition. Ericksen did not withdraw or correct the affidavit and affirmed at the hearing that he continued to believe its statements were true. The court added that even recklessness, combined with the frivolous nature of the discovery motions supported by the statements, would have been enough for sanctions.

Disposition

Under its inherent authority, the court sanctioned Ericksen for misrepresentations and misleading statements in the sworn affidavit. It ordered him to pay $500 to the Clerk of Court and to pay Chevron’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the order to show cause and appearing at the related hearing. Chevron was ordered to submit evidence of those fees within seven days, after which Ericksen had seven days to object to their reasonableness or pay them. Ericksen was also ordered to send the $500 payment to the Clerk’s Office within fourteen days and attach a copy of the ruling. The court referred the matter to the California Bar for investigation.