Antolini v. N Corporation

Background

The court had previously sanctioned the defendants for repeatedly failing to comply with discovery orders and had required them to pay attorneys’ fees connected to Antolini’s discovery-sanctions motions. The court later notified Oliver Zhou, the defendants’ former counsel, that it was considering sanctions against him for representing to the court that he represented N Corporation and was communicating with it about discovery when he had not contacted any N Corporation agent.

Zhou initially told the court that he represented all three defendants and would work with them to address their discovery obligations. The court found that he did not speak with a N Corporation representative until May 26, 2020, and did not investigate whether N Corporation wanted him as counsel until June 3, 2020. During that period, he opposed discovery and sanctions motions in N Corporation’s name and continued telling the court that he was communicating with N Corporation and working on its discovery responses. The court found that his conduct delayed discovery and caused the parties and the court to spend time on unnecessary discovery disputes.

Sanctions against Zhou

The court considered its inherent authority to control court proceedings and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which permits sanctions against an attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings. The court explained that direct sanctions against an attorney require notice of the conduct at issue, the legal authority for the proposed sanctions, and an opportunity to respond. It found that Zhou received that notice and opportunity.

The court determined that Zhou’s representations about representing N Corporation, communicating with it, and working with it on discovery lacked a colorable basis. Although the court did not find that Zhou acted with an improper purpose, it held that sanctions were still appropriate because he recklessly failed to perform his responsibilities as an officer of the court. The court rejected Zhou’s arguments that he relied on statements from Ms. He and Mr. Hui, that Mr. Hui had authorized the representation, that a potential conflict excused his conduct, that he had returned fees, or that N Corporation should be sanctioned instead. The court found that Zhou should have investigated his representation and the discovery problems much earlier.

Attorneys’ fees

The court granted Antolini’s fee request in part. It found that fees were warranted for work performed after Antolini served his third motion to compel on February 28, 2020, through June 17, 2020, when Zhou investigated and corrected his misrepresentation. That period totaled 5.6 hours.

The court rejected the requested hourly rate of $450 because Antolini’s counsel had not provided enough information about counsel’s education, experience, reputation, or comparable billing rate. It found that $350 per hour was reasonable given the straightforward nature of the case and the legal work involved. The resulting award was $1,960.00, payable by Zhou. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at docket entries 37, 42, and 74.