Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC

Background

The plaintiffs are a group of Russian television broadcasters. They alleged that various defendants, including Panorama Alliance, LP, intercepted and rebroadcast their television programming without authorization. The opinion addresses motions filed by Panorama’s former counsel, Alan P. Fraade and the Mintz Fraade Law Firm, P.C. (the “Movants”).

The Movants sought reconsideration of three earlier sanctions orders:

- A July 18, 2017 order by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses imposing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) against Panorama and the Movants. - A September 28, 2017 order by Judge Daniels adopting a recommendation to impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against Panorama and the Movants. - A May 24, 2019 order by Magistrate Judge Moses setting the sanctions amount at $91,147.75.

Magistrate Judge Moses denied reconsideration of the July 2017 and May 2019 orders and recommended that Judge Daniels deny reconsideration of the September 2017 order. The Movants objected to those rulings and recommendation.

Legal standards and analysis

The court explained that a district judge reviews a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial matter under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. This means the ruling is changed only if the district judge is firmly convinced that an error occurred or if the ruling failed to apply the relevant law. The court reviews properly challenged portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation independently.

The court held that the sanctions orders concerning the Rule 37(b) sanctions and the amount of sanctions were nondispositive pretrial matters. Therefore, the denial of reconsideration of those orders was subject to the more deferential review standard rather than independent review.

The court also applied the strict standard for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling law or facts that the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. It is not a way to repeat arguments already considered or present new theories.

The court concluded that the motions for reconsideration of the July 2017 and September 2017 orders were untimely under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires such motions to be served within 14 days after the order determining the original motion. The Movants filed their motions on June 7, 2019, nearly 22 months after the July 2017 order and nearly 20 months after the September 2017 order. The court rejected the argument that the deadline waited until the amount of sanctions was determined, explaining that imposing sanctions and determining their amount were separate matters.

The court also concluded that the motions were meritless as to all three sanctions orders. The Movants did not identify controlling decisions or information that the court had overlooked and instead repeated arguments directed at the underlying sanctions orders. Those arguments included challenges to joint liability with Panorama, the plaintiffs’ billing records, allegedly duplicative or excessive fees, and fees for work that allegedly would have occurred regardless of the sanctioned conduct.

Ruling

Judge George B. Daniels denied all of the Movants’ motions for reconsideration. He denied the Movants’ appeal of Magistrate Judge Moses’s orders, overruled their objections, affirmed the portion of Magistrate Judge Moses’s June 13, 2019 order and report and recommendation denying reconsideration of the July 2017 and May 2019 orders, and adopted the recommendation to deny reconsideration of the September 2017 order. The clerk was directed to close the motions.