Buchanan v. Raschke et al
Filing
96
ORDER that 86 Motion for Contempt Against Mitchell L. Posin; and 90 Motion for Attorney Fees and Sanctions Already Levied Against Plaintiff to Be Taken Off Plaintiff and Levied on Mitchell L. Posin; are granted, in part, and denied, in part. The Court's previous Orders Nos. 39, 53 and 58 are modified and amended as enumerated in the Order. FURTHER ORDERED that the due date for filing the joint pretrial memorandum in this case is extended to April 15, 2013 to afford the Plaintiff and Defendant an opportunity to resolve this action by settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/15/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
JAMES JEFFREY BUCHANAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:11-cv-00271-RCJ-GWF
ORDER
14
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff in Proper Person Motion for Contempt Against
15
Mitchell L. Posin, Esq. (#86) filed December 26, 2012 and Plaintiff’s In Proper Person Motion for
16
Attorney Fees and Sanctions Already Levied Against Plaintiff to Be Taken Off Plaintiff and Levied
17
on Mitchell L. Posin, Esq. (#90), filed on January 11, 2013. At the Court’s direction, Plaintiff
18
served this motion on his former counsel in this action, Mr. Posin. Mr. Posin did not file a written
19
response, but did appear at the February 14, 2013 hearing in this matter.
20
BACKGROUND AND DECISION
21
On May 9, 2012, the Court granted Defendant City of Las Vegas’s Motion to Compel
22
Discovery Responses from Plaintiff (#33) to compel further responses to requests for production of
23
documents. The Plaintiff had responded to each of the Defendant City’s requests by stating
24
“[a]lready provided in disclosures” without any further explanation. The Court found that these
25
responses were evasive and improper. The Court also determined that the Defendant City was
26
entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and expenses against the Plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro.
27
37(a)(5). Order (#39). On June 20, 2012, the Court awarded the Defendant City the total sum of
28
$3,500.00 and ordered the Plaintiff to make payment by July 11, 2012. Order (#53).
1
On July 11, 2012, the due date for payment, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Toll Payment of
2
Fees and Costs (#55). The Court found “that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely, without merit and
3
brought for the purpose of delaying payment of fees.” The Court therefore awarded the City
4
Defendants an additional $1,225.00 in fees for having to oppose Plaintiff’s motion. The Court
5
therefore ordered Plaintiff to make payment in the sum of $4,725.00 to the City Defendant no later
6
than August 27, 2012. Order (#58), pg. 2. This award remains unpaid.
7
Mr. Buchanan subsequently discharged Mr. Posin as his counsel and now represents himself
8
in this action. Mr. Buchanan argues that the failure to provide proper discovery responses was
9
solely the fault of Mr. Posin and that Mr. Posin should be held responsible for the payment of the
10
attorney’s fee awards in Orders Nos. 39, 53 and 58. Mr. Posin argued at the hearing that he should
11
not be held responsible. He represented that Mr. Buchanan was an employee in his office at the
12
time of the foregoing matters and therefore was aware of the need to properly respond to the
13
discovery or pay the sanctions awarded by the Court. Mr. Buchanan confirmed that he was
14
employed in Mr. Posin’s office at the times in question.
15
Rule 37(a)(5)(A) states that if a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving
16
an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion,
17
the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable attorney’s fees.”
18
Given that Mr. Buchanan was both Mr. Posin’s employee and client, the Court finds that Mr. Posin
19
is, at least, as equally responsible as Mr. Buchanan for the failure to provide proper discovery
20
responses and for filing the unjustified motion to toll the payment of fees and costs on the date that
21
payment was due. Based on the same circumstances, the Court cannot find that Mr. Buchanan is
22
not responsible such that he should be absolved of liability for payment of the award to the City.
23
Accordingly,
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff in Proper Person Motion for Contempt Against
25
Mitchell L. Posin, Esq. (#86) and Plaintiff’s In Proper Person Motion for Attorney Fees and
26
Sanctions Already Levied Against Plaintiff to Be Taken Off Plaintiff and Levied on Mitchell L.
27
Posin, Esq. (#90) are granted, in part, and denied, in part. The Court’s previous Orders Nos. 39, 53
28
and 58 are modified and amended as follows:
2
1
1.
Plaintiff James Jeffrey Buchanan and his former attorney Mitchell L. Posin are held
2
jointly and severally liable for payment of the full $4,725.00 in attorneys fees previously awarded
3
to the Defendant City of Las Vegas.
4
2.
Plaintiff James Jeffrey Buchanan and/or Mitchell L. Posin shall pay the $4,750.00 to
5
the Defendant City of Las Vegas on or before March 15, 2013. Failure to pay this award will
6
result in the imposition of further reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the City to obtain
7
payment.
8
3.
9
10
As between Plaintiff James Jeffrey Buchanan and Mitchell L. Posin, each individual
is found responsible to the other for 50 percent of the award to the City of Las Vegas.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the due date for filing the joint pretrial memorandum in
11
this case is extended to April 15, 2013 to afford the Plaintiff and Defendant an opportunity to
12
resolve this action by settlement.
13
DATED this 15th day of February, 2013.
14
15
16
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
