Uttarwar v. Lazard Asset Management LLC

Background

Defendants Lazard Asset Management LLC and Keri Tusa moved for sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on Manmohan Uttarwar’s discovery violations. They requested three forms of relief: exclusion of evidence supporting damages, a negative inference at summary judgment or trial concerning damages and undisclosed evidence, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the sanctions motion and earlier discovery proceedings.

The court described repeated failures by Uttarwar to comply with discovery obligations. He did not produce relevant documents by the initial or extended discovery deadlines. He provided unverified answers to interrogatories that required verification. At his June 16, 2023 deposition, he acknowledged possessing previously undisclosed responsive documents. He later produced some documents, and the court allowed Defendants to take a second deposition. The court previously ordered Uttarwar to bear the costs caused by his discovery violations, including deposition attorneys’ fees.

After that order, Uttarwar waited approximately three and a half months before producing some additional documents and a verified interrogatory response containing a new damages calculation. The court found that he continued delaying and failing to comply with discovery requests and court orders, and that he had not provided a reasonable explanation for those failures.

Court’s analysis

Rule 37 permits sanctions for discovery violations. The court explained that monetary sanctions are generally appropriate when a party must bring a motion to obtain discovery to which it is entitled or to seek sanctions. The disobedient party bears the burden of showing that the failure was justified or that special circumstances would make an award unfair. The court also stated that a failure need not be intentional to support sanctions.

The court had already granted Defendants summary judgment on all of Uttarwar’s substantive claims, including his requests for back pay and future pay. Because of that prior ruling, the requests to exclude damages evidence and draw a negative inference were moot. The court therefore denied those two requests.

The court granted the request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the sanctions motion. It found that Uttarwar had clearly and repeatedly disregarded his discovery obligations and had offered no meaningful opposition to Defendants’ request for fees and costs connected to the sanctions motion. The court also reiterated that its earlier order required Uttarwar to bear costs arising from his discovery violations, including costs connected to the motion to compel and the second deposition.

Disposition

The conclusion states that Defendants’ motion for sanctions was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The court granted the fee-and-cost request related to filing the sanctions motion, but reserved the final award amount until the parties completed briefing. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about a briefing schedule and submit a joint proposal by April 5, 2024. Defendants’ opening submission was required to include an accounting of fees and costs associated with the sanctions motion. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 45.