Yeremis v. Charter Communications Inc

Background

Arturo Yeremis sued Amerit Fleet Solutions and other defendants, alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination. He also sought the return of a toolbox and tools that he said were worth a substantial amount. Leonard Zack represented Yeremis.

Before ordinary discovery began, Zack made several applications seeking access to Yeremis’s former locker and the return of the tools. The court denied the first application without prejudice because the discovery rule cited by Zack did not provide a basis for the requested relief. The court later allowed an application for an order requiring defendants to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue, but ultimately denied the request for a preliminary injunction because Yeremis had not shown that he would suffer harm that could not be repaired later.

Zack then sought permission to file a motion requiring Amerit and Charter Communications to respond to information requests and permit inspection of the facility and locker area. The court had previously denied a motion to compel because Zack had not filed the required pre-motion submission and had not shown that he had served proper written discovery requests. The court explained that discovery generally could not begin before the parties held the required conference under Rule 26(f), that informal emails and telephone conversations were not proper discovery requests, and that defendants had not yet used up the time allowed to respond to any valid request under Rule 34.

The Motion and Sanctions Proceedings

At a November 18, 2020 conference, the court discussed these problems with Zack in detail. The court asked whether a Rule 26(f) conference had occurred, and Zack said he did not believe one had occurred. The court also explained the need for properly served requests and the 30-day response period. The court warned that a motion lacking a legal basis could be frivolous and sanctionable, while allowing Zack to file it without deciding that it was valid.

Zack filed the motion to compel on November 25, 2020. The court found that the filing did not address the legal issues identified during the conference and instead focused on the hardship Yeremis allegedly faced because he lacked his tools. On December 1, the court ordered Zack to explain why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Zack later withdrew the motion and argued that withdrawal prevented sanctions under Rule 11’s 21-day safe-harbor provision.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 11 requires a lawyer to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law before filing a motion. It prohibits legal positions that have no reasonable chance of success and filings made for an improper purpose. When a court begins the sanctions process itself, rather than a party filing a sanctions motion, the 21-day safe harbor does not apply. The court also explained that this type of court-initiated sanction requires a finding of subjective bad faith.

The court concluded that the motion to compel was not objectively reasonable. No Rule 26(f) conference had occurred, the requests had not been properly served, and the motion was filed before the time for responding to any valid inspection request had expired. The court stated that even accepting Zack’s arguments about oral discussions and email exchanges, the motion was still premature.

The court further found bad faith because Zack had received repeated, specific warnings about the motion’s legal deficiencies but filed it without addressing them. The court said the motion was so completely without merit that it must have been brought for an improper purpose. It considered the motion’s limited effect on the overall case and Zack’s withdrawal of it as mitigating factors, but found that defendants and the court still had to spend time responding to the filing.

Disposition

The court sanctioned Leonard Zack under Rule 11. It directed Amerit and Charter Communications to submit detailed requests for the reasonable fees and expenses they incurred opposing the motion to compel. Zack could respond to those requests and provide information about his ability to pay. The court stated that it would determine the amount of the sanctions after reviewing those submissions. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion to compel listed at docket entry 73.