Castro v. 3920 BWY Rest Inc.

Background

The defendants moved for reconsideration of sanctions orders entered at Docket ## 74 and 76. Those sanctions orders were based on the assumption that defendants had failed to comply with an earlier order, Docket # 71, requiring appropriately verified interrogatory answers by October 25, 2019.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that newly presented facts undermined the basis for the sanctions. Defendants’ counsel had served the proper interrogatory responses by mail on October 23, 2019. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C), service by mail is complete when the papers are mailed, so defendants had complied with Docket # 71.

The court also considered whether sanctions could be based on counsel’s failure to oppose the sanctions request. Although counsel’s failure to respond had wasted the court’s and plaintiffs’ counsel’s time, the court credited counsel’s statement that he had not received electronic filing notices during the relevant period. The court noted that counsel still had a duty to regularly review the docket, but the first sanctions request was granted only three days after it was filed. The court further stated that electronic service is ineffective when the filer learns that the notice did not reach the person to be served.

Ruling

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the motion for reconsideration at Docket # 78 and vacated the prior sanctions orders at Docket ## 74 and 76. The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to return the money paid by defendants’ counsel under those orders by December 12, 2019, and to contact defendants’ counsel to arrange the transfer. The order addressed the sanctions and reconsideration issues; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.