Iannuzzi v. Lu

Background

An earlier February 21, 2023 order required Wenzhao Lu to produce documents concerning the ownership, valuation, and possible sale of Lu Daopei Hospital. On March 31, 2023, John Nicholas Iannuzzi filed a letter seeking contempt sanctions, asserting that Lu had provided no information covered by that order. The court construed the letter as seeking a discovery conference required before a party moves for discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

Lu responded that he could not comply because he was not affiliated with Lu Daopei in any capacity and had no access to the entity's books and records. He submitted supplemental discovery responses and an affidavit. Wang Xiaowei separately filed a letter claiming to be a Chinese lawyer representing Lu Daopei Hospital.

Order

The court ordered that Wang Xiaowei's letter, docketed at Dkt. 69, be stricken from the record because it was both untimely and inadmissible: it was unsworn and unauthenticated.

The court scheduled a discovery conference for April 25, 2023. It stated that its practice was to decide discovery disputes, including requests for discovery sanctions, at the conference based on the parties' letters and any arguments presented, unless more formal briefing was requested or required. The order did not decide whether Lu should be sanctioned.

Issues for the Conference

Iannuzzi was directed to be prepared to explain why he had not met and conferred with Lu before seeking sanctions, why he had not attached Lu's supplemental responses and affidavit, and what evidence supported his assertion that Lu had been listed as chief operating officer of the hospital complex. Iannuzzi was also directed to explain why, if he no longer had certain documents, he had failed to preserve them.

Lu was directed to address earlier statements that he had been an officer, director, and equity holder in the Lu Daopei Medical Center until 2021; had given up his position and equity to facilitate a planned public offering; and remained a company consultant as of April 19, 2022. The court specifically asked him to address why he had not produced his own documents concerning his equity, positions with the entity, and involvement in the planned offering, even if he no longer had access to the entity's records.

Disposition

Judge Barbara Moses struck Dkt. 69, scheduled the discovery conference, and directed the Clerk to close Dkt. 70 because it was a reply letter supporting Dkt. 67 rather than a new motion.