Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi

Background

Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. and Nick Torres brought claims involving breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and malpractice against James Barchiesi and related entities. James Barchiesi later brought third-party claims against Linda Roth, Roth Associates, and Roth Certified Public Accountants. The opinion concerns discovery disputes, not the final merits of those underlying claims.

At an October 2022 deposition, counsel questioned James Barchiesi about his brother Robert Barchiesi’s involvement in businesses allegedly connected to the underlying dispute. Robert Barchiesi, who represented James Barchiesi, objected and said he would suspend the deposition to seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30. According to the opinion, James Barchiesi and Robert Barchiesi then left the deposition, and Robert also canceled a deposition of the plaintiffs scheduled for the next day. At a later deposition, James again refused to answer questions about Robert’s involvement.

At a November 2022 discovery conference, the court stated that the deposition would resume and that questions about Robert’s involvement in the businesses would be permitted. The court also ordered that James have separate counsel for the limited purpose of responding to those questions. The court allowed the plaintiffs to seek sanctions.

Plaintiffs’ and Third-Party Defendants’ Motions

The court held that the questions about Robert’s business involvement were relevant, including because Robert could be a potential witness. It also held that attorney-client privilege did not protect the questions. The privilege protects confidential communications made to obtain or provide legal advice; it does not generally protect the identity of a client, the existence of an attorney-client relationship, or the fact of a person’s involvement in a business.

The court further held that a party may not unilaterally terminate a deposition because of an objection, including an objection based on attorney-client privilege. Because the Barchiesi Brothers ended the October deposition and James refused to answer similar questions at the January deposition, the court found the conduct sanctionable.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ and third-party defendants’ motions for sanctions. It ordered James Barchiesi to pay the plaintiffs $11,826 and the third-party defendants $5,099.36 within 60 days after entry of the order. The opinion states that these amounts represented deposition-related costs, including attorney time and other expenses submitted by the parties.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike James Barchiesi’s answer. It described striking an answer as a harsh remedy reserved for extreme situations and declined to impose it here.

Motion to Compel Tax Documents

James Barchiesi sought an order requiring the plaintiffs to produce tax documents, including payroll and sales tax information, and documents supporting their claimed damages. The court held that the tax documents were relevant and necessary to defend against the plaintiffs’ accountant-malpractice claim concerning tax preparation. It also found a compelling need for the documents because the information was not otherwise readily obtainable.

The court granted James Barchiesi’s motion to compel. The plaintiffs were required to produce electronic versions of the requested tax documents, and the parties were ordered to divide the cost of producing those electronic versions evenly.

The court denied James Barchiesi’s motion for sanctions. Under the discovery rules, a party generally must meet and confer, or try in good faith to do so, before asking the court to compel discovery or award sanctions. The court found that James had not met and conferred with the plaintiffs before filing the motion. The opinion also noted that the plaintiffs had already made their tax documents available for inspection.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ and third-party defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, denied their Motion to Strike, granted James Barchiesi’s Motion to Compel, and denied James Barchiesi’s Motion for Sanctions. The court directed payment of the two specified sanctions awards and requested that the clerk close the listed docket entries.