Opinion
2:20-cv-02375-FLA (AFMx)
10-12-2022
MATTHEW D. VAN STEENWYK, Plaintiff, v. KEDRIN E. VAN STEENWYK, et al., Defendant, and APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATES, INC., SCIENTIFIC DRILLING INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ATA RANCHES, INC., Nominal Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE WITH MODIFICATIONS [DKT. 273]
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Further, the court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected and Defendants' responses thereto. The court accepts and adopts in part the Magistrate Judge's Report with the following modifications.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Order Issuing Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants (Dkt. 273) is GRANTED and that:
(i) The court finds Defendants violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) by failing to produce the annual shareholder meeting minutes during discovery - a violation that was not substantially justified or harmless;
(ii) Defendants shall pay Plaintiff by no later than October 21, 2022, the sum of $15,765, as reasonable attorney's fees that Plaintiff incurred in connection with the ex parte application; and
(iii) The exclusion remedy sought by the ex parte application for the annual shareholder meeting minutes, including the 2014 Annual Shareholder Meeting Minutes, is GRANTED, and the annual shareholder meeting minutes are EXCLUDED from use in this action.
As set forth in the Report, Defendants had ample time to produce discovery and have offered no explanation for their failure to produce the minutes, other than to state they intended to do so. Defendants' failure to produce the shareholder minutes, including the 2014 Meeting Minutes, during discovery was not substantially justified, materially harmed Plaintiff by impeding his ability to investigate and conduct discovery regarding the authenticity and content of the documents, and prejudiced Plaintiff in responding to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the court will not require Plaintiff to incur additional fees and costs to remedy Defendants' failure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.