Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Lawson Foods, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:17-cv-07454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vista Food Exchange v. Lawson Foods, Judge Carter denied Lawson’s motion to reconsider sanctions for failing to comply with a subpoena.
Lawson Foods, LLC’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leaving in place the earlier sanctions order, including the striking of Lawson’s answer and entry of default against Lawson. The earlier order also addressed Lawson, Fortress Foods LLC, and Simon Law.
What happened
Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Lawson Foods, LLC concerned Lawson Foods’ failure to comply with an earlier contempt order involving a subpoena issued to Fortress Foods LLC. The earlier order held Lawson and Simon Law responsible for Fortress’s noncompliance and imposed daily fines.
After Lawson failed to comply with that order, the court adopted a recommendation that included striking Lawson’s answer, entering default against Lawson, assessing certain fees and fines, and holding Lawson, Fortress, and Simon Law jointly responsible for some amounts. The recommendation had advised that Vista’s sanctions motion be granted in part and denied in part.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Lawson’s motion for reconsideration. He concluded that Lawson was repeating arguments already made and rejected, and had not shown a legal change, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice that justified reconsideration.
The detailed version
- Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Lawson Foods, LLC · No. 1:17-cv-07454
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 15, 2020
Background
The order addresses Lawson Foods, LLC’s motion to reconsider the court’s November 30, 2020 order adopting Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s Report and Recommendation. The earlier proceedings arose from Fortress Foods LLC’s failure to respond to a subpoena. After an evidentiary hearing, the court held Lawson and Simon Law, Lawson’s managing member, responsible for Fortress’s failure because they controlled Fortress or were its alter egos. The court also imposed a fine for each additional day Fortress did not answer the subpoena, for which Lawson and Law were jointly and severally liable.
Lawson then failed to comply with the contempt order. Vista Food Exchange moved for sanctions. Judge Netburn recommended that Vista’s motion be granted in part and denied in part. The recommendation included striking Lawson’s answer, entering default against Lawson, remanding the matter for a damages inquiry, holding any judgment against Lawson, Fortress, and Simon Law jointly and severally, awarding certain attorney’s fees, and including the contempt-order fine through the date of adoption. It recommended declining further monetary sanctions and declining to imprison Simon Law. The district court adopted the recommendation in full.
Motion for Reconsideration
Lawson argued that the earlier report and order had not adequately addressed whether it could do more than make a perfunctory effort to comply with the Fortress subpoena. Lawson also argued that lesser sanctions should have been considered instead of striking its answer and entering default. The court found that both arguments had already been presented in Lawson’s objections to the recommendation and had been considered and rejected.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied the motion for reconsideration. The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Lawson’s disagreement with the court’s conclusions and the length of its discussion did not satisfy that standard. The court therefore denied the motion without changing its November 30 order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.