Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 1 of 6

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDA
MIAMIDIVISION

CASENO.1520782CIVMARTINEZ/GOODMAN

DENNISL.MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMESRISEN,etal.,

Defendants.
______________________________/
POSTDISCOVERYHEARINGADMINISTRATIVEORDER

After following the appropriate procedures in the Undersigneds Discovery

Procedures Order [ECF Nos. 48; 123] (i.e., contacting Chambers to arrange a hearing
date,conferringwithopposingcounselabouttheissuesindisputeandthehearingdate,
andnoticingthemattersforhearingonthedocket),PlaintifffiledaNoticeofHearing
[ECFNo.165]concerningtwodistincttopics:(1)difficultyinarrangingthedeposition
ofathirdpartyinCalifornia(whowasalreadythesubjectofamotiontocompelinthe
Southern District of California), and (2) alleged harassment of Plaintiffs family
membersbyDefendants.ThehearingwasscheduledforNovember4,2015.[Id.].

OnNovember3,2015,PlaintifffiledaModifiedNoticeofTelephonicHearing

[ECFNo.171],inwhichPlaintiffscounselnoticedadditionaltopicsfortheNovember4,

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 2 of 6

2015 Discovery Hearing that concerned the substantive objections of thirdparty

witnessesinthestateofNewYorkwhoPlaintiffisscheduledtotakethedepositionof
on November 9 and 10, 2015. Plaintiff did not confer with opposing counsel, nor the
UndersignedsChambers,beforenoticingtheseadditionaltopicstotheagendaforthe
November 4, 2015 Discovery Hearing, a direct violation of the Discovery Procedures
Order.Additionally,Plaintiffdidnotnoticethethirdpartieswhoweretobethesubject
oftheveryreliefthatPlaintiffsought.

In response tothis ModifiedNotice,Defendants filed aNotice[ECFNo. 172]

objectingtotheadditionofthesenewtopicswithonly24hoursnotice,withoutproper
conferralandintheincorrectforumforresolutionoftheissues.Defendantsobjectionto
thisunauthorizedNoticeissustained;Plaintiffnoticedthehearinginappropriatelyand
therefore the matters could not be heard substantively for the reasons stated on the
record.

At the Discovery Hearing, the Undersigned provided Plaintiffs counsel the

opportunity to explain why a feeshifting award should not be imposed, but the
explanationwasunsatisfactory.Accordingly,asstatedontherecord,1theUndersigned
considersDefendantstobetheprevailingpartyconcerningtheModifiedNotice.

If any party appeals this Order to the District Court, then the transcript of the
hearingwillneedtobeordered,asitoutlinestheUndersignedsreasoning.

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 3 of 6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that the Court must

requirethelosingpartyorattorneyorbothtopaythecosts/feesaward,intheabsence
of an exception. Moreover, the Discovery Procedures Order [ECF No. 48] and the
Updated Discovery Procedures Order [ECF No. 123] both specifically caution parties
about the rule and its requirement that fees be awarded unless an exception applies.
Additionally, Plaintiffs counsel already has had such a feeshifting award entered
against him in this case [ECF No. 136] and so counsel is well aware of the
UndersignedspolicyconcerningRule37.

The Undersigned does not believe that Plaintiff should pay the award, as it is

clear that Plaintiffs counsel took these unjustified actions in noticing inappropriate
mattersforhearingwithoutfollowingtheproperprocedures,resultingintheopposing
partybeingforcedtoincurfeestodraftanobjectiontotheNoticeandtoaddressthese
issuesattheDiscoveryHearing.Therefore,itisPlaintiffscounsel2whowillpaythefees
awardof$1,5003byNovember14,2015.

TheUndersigneddoesnotconsideraRule37(a)(5)(A)expenseshiftingawardto
beasanction,ortheimpositionofdiscipline,oranindicationthatanyoneactedinbad
faith. Rather, it is merely a consequence of taking certain unjustified positions in
discovery.Thus,thisOrderwouldnotrequirePlaintiffscounseltoansweryesifever
asked(e.g.,byaprospectiveemployer,byaninsurancecarrier,byajudicialnominating
commission, by a client, or by a prospective client) if he had ever been sanctioned or
disciplined.

The Undersigned inquired on the record as to defense counsels time spent

addressing Plaintiffs inappropriate Notice of Hearing (i.e., time spent drafting and
2

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 4 of 6

Ifanyparty(orcounselofrecord)objectstoeitherthefeesawardortheamount

oftheaward,thentheCourtwillholdahearingifanobjectionisfiledbyNovember9,
2015.Ifthechallenge istotheamount,thencounselforbothsideswillberequiredto
submittheirbillingrecordsforthetimeinquestion.

Finally,Plaintiffscounselshallnot,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,passonthefees

award to his client. Plaintiffs counsel shall submit an affidavit of compliance,

confirming that the payment was made, to the Courts efile inbox
(goodman@flsd.uscourts.gov)withintwodaysofmakingthepayment.Thisistheefile
inbox, not the official CM/ECF filing protocol for pleadings, motions and other Court
submissions.
IssuesAppropriatelyNoticedforHearing

Concerning the two topics that were appropriately noticed for hearing in the

October 27, 2015 Notice of Hearing [ECF No. 165], the Undersigned heard argument
frombothsidesanddeniedbothofPlaintiffsrequestsforrelief.

First, concerning the difficulty in arranging a third partys deposition in

California(whichwasalreadythesubjectofamotiontocompelintheSouthernDistrict
of California): (1) this Court does not have jurisdiction over the dispute and a federal
judge in California has already issued an Order on Plaintiffs motion to compel; (2)
despite Plaintiffs counsels protestations otherwise, a federal magistrate judge in
editing the objection to the Notice) and about the discounted billing rates for defense
counselinthiscase,inordertoestablishtheamountoffeesawarded.
4

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 5 of 6

Californiahasruledthatservicewasnotmade,sotheUndersignedcannotsetasidethat
ruling; (3) Plaintiffs bald assertions and mere suspicions of collusion among defense
counselandthethirdpartywitnessbaseduponthefactthatthewitnessuseddefense
counsels first name in an email is not sufficient for this Court to enter any sort of
ruling(evenifthisCourthadjurisdictionovertheissue,whichitdoesnot);and(4)this
CourtwillnotrulethatthisdepositionmusttakeplaceinDecember.

Second, concerning Plaintiffs allegations that Defendants process server

harassed Plaintiffs family, based upon the explanation proffered at the Discovery
Hearing, the Undersigned concludes that no inappropriate action was taken, and I
thereforewillnotissueanOrderprovidinganyrelieftoPlaintifforhisfamily.Infact,if
anyone acted improperly, it appears to be Plaintiffs daughter, who, according to
defensecounselsproffer,repeatedlyliedtotheprocessserverinanefforttotrickhim
intothinkingthathehadthewrongaddress.

BecausePlaintiffssoninlaw(whoDefendantsprocessserverwasattemptingto

servewhenthisincidentwithPlaintiffsdaughteroccurred)allegedlycontestedservice
and faxed objections to the subpoena, defense counsel requested at the Discovery
HearingthattheUndersignedenteranOrderdeclaringthatservicewas,infact,proper.
However,theUndersigned rejectedthis requested relief for severalreasons, including
the fact that the party contesting service was not present, the subpoena was issued in
theStateofWashington(andthereforewasnotwithintheUndersignedsjurisdiction),
5

Case 1:15-cv-20782-JEM Document 175 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 6 of 6

and most prominently, Defendants (like Plaintiffs counsel did for the matters on the
ModifiedNotice)neverproperlynoticedthisrequestforreliefforhearing,andsothe
Undersignedwillnotruleonasurpriseissue.

DONEANDORDEREDinChambers,atMiami,Florida,November5,2015.

Copiesfurnishedto:
TheHonorableJoseE.Martinez
Allcounselofrecord