DAN FRIEDMAN Plaintiff, v. STHREE PLC., ET AL., Defendants Civil No. 3:14-cv-378(AWT) United States District Court, D. Connecticut Filed October 09, 2019 Counsel Alan H. Kaufman, Kaufman LLC, New York, NY, Joseph A. Pace, Pro Hac Vice, New York, NY, Stephen G. Grygiel, Pro Hac Vice, Grygiel Law, LLC, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff. Aneca E. Lasley, Pro Hac Vice, Christopher Haas, Pro Hac Vice, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Columbus, OH, Joseph P. Ashbrook, Pro Hac Vice, Sqire Patton Boggs (US), LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Jeffrey J. Mirman, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendants SThree PLC, Ivana Radujko. Derek J.T. Adler, Pro Hac Vice, Ned H. Bassen, Pro Hac Vice, Hughes, Hubbard & Reed L.L.P., New York, NY, Alfred U. Pavlis, Finn Dixon & Herling LLP, Stamford, CT, Richard S. Gora, Gora LLC, Trumbull, CT, William Morten Tong, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants Palladyne International Asset Management B.V., Ismael Abudher, Lily Yeo, Nikolay Tischchenko, Piedad Alonso Gamo. Thompson, Alvin W., United States District Judge ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO SANCTIONS ORDER *1 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Objection to Sanctions Order of September 15, 2017 (ECF No. 335), which is a request that the court reconsider and overrule the magistrate judge's order on the grounds that it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), is hereby denied. Plaintiff's Objection to Sanctions Order (“Plaintiff's Objection”) states that he objects to “the sanctions order against him and his counsel dated September 15, 2017 .... ECF 311.” (Pl.’s Obj. 2, ECF No. 335.) The plaintiff summarizes the objections as follows: • Friedman fully and timely complied with all discovery orders[;] • The Second Circuit requirements for due process before the imposition of sanctions were not accorded to the either the party or non-party sanction targets[;] • No notice was given, or opportunity to be heard in compliance with Second Circuit precedent, that sanctions would be imposed on Friedman's counsel, and the only hearing in which the subject was mentioned was called for a different purpose[;] • The subject matter of the discovery sought was not capable of altering outcome, so the sanctions rewarded extravagant, unnecessary motion practice that failed to conform to the proportionality standards of Rule 26 or the law governing subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and as a result caused no prejudice, and • As a result, the sanctions were contrary to law and should be vacated[.] (Id.) However, the order the plaintiff objects to is the Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Sanctions (ECF No. 311) (“Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees”). The Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees set forth the court's decision on the SThree Defendants’ Second Application for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 206), the Palladyne Defendants’ Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs (ECF No. 205), and the Palladyne Defendants’ Motion to Increase Daily Sanction and for Other Relief (ECF No. 225). The motions that were the subject of the Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees were filed in response to an earlier ruling of the court, i.e., the Order re: Discovery (ECF No. 200) (“Order Imposing Sanctions”). In the Order Imposing Sanctions, the magistrate judge “determined that plaintiff has failed to adequately respond to the defendants’ discovery requests and to comply with the Court's orders, and that sanctions are therefore appropriate.” (Order Imposing Sanctions 3, ECF No. 200.) At the conclusion of the Order Imposing Sanctions, the court stated: As noted previously, “[f]ailure to comply fully with the Court's orders and deadlines may result in the imposition of sanctions, including financial sanctions, preclusion of evidence or claims, or dismissal or default.” Doc. #182 at 14. Plaintiff's failure to meet his discovery obligations, failure to comply with the Court's Orders, and failure to simply make a concerted effort to obtain and disclose responsive documents at this stage in the proceedings warrants the imposition of sanctions. Throughout the course of jurisdictional discovery in this matter, plaintiff has repeatedly represented that all responsive documents had been produced, when in fact, complete searches were not conducted. Defendants’ efforts at obtaining jurisdictional discovery have been repeatedly frustrated by plaintiff's counsel's contradictory representations, late and incomplete productions, and failure to oversee the searches and production of discovery. The Court finds that defendants are entitled to costs and fees as a sanction for plaintiff's conduct. *2 (Id. at 20.) The court then directed counsel for the defendants to file affidavits of fees and costs, and also imposed an additional daily monetary sanction for continued non-compliance. As noted by the magistrate judge in the Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees, the plaintiff did not file an objection to the Order Imposing Sanctions. (See Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees 4.) Any objection to the Order Imposing Sanctions was required to be filed within fourteen days of October 24, 2016. (See id. at 4 n.2.) The Order Imposing Sanctions made this clear: “This is an order regarding case management which is reviewable pursuant to the ‘clearly erroneous’ statutory standard of review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2.” (Order Imposing Sanctions 22.) Each of those provisions makes it clear that any objection must be filed within fourteen days. The Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees quite properly accepts as established for purposes of this case the findings set forth in the Order Imposing Sanctions and refers to those findings to provide context and also in response to the plaintiff's argument that he was denied due process. (See Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees 12-14.)[1] It is not apparent to the court how the plaintiff, having failed to object to the Order Imposing Sanctions, can have a good-faith belief that he is permitted to attack the Order Imposing Sanctions in the guise of objecting to the Ruling re: Attorney's Fees. In any event, having reviewed the papers submitted by the plaintiff, the SThree Defendants (see ECF No. 340), and the Palladyne Defendants (see ECF No. 339) in addition to the Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees and the Order Imposing Sanctions, it is clear to the court that the plaintiff's contentions lack merit and have as their foundation either mischaracterizations of the record and/or willfully ignoring portions of the record that are unfavorable to him. It is so ordered. Dated this 9th day of October 2019, at Hartford, Connecticut. Footnotes [1] Because the plaintiff did not timely file an objection to the Order Imposing Sanctions, the plaintiff's due process argument was not properly included in his opposition to the applications for attorneys’ fees, and the magistrate judge noted that fact. (See Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees 12 (“The Court has already determined that an award of attorneys’ fees is proper in this instance, and no timely objection or motion to reconsider was filed. Accordingly, the Court will not revisit that issue.”).) However, the court did “briefly address plaintiff's due process argument,” (id.) and made it clear that the argument lacked merit. Having reviewed the filings in connection with the Order Imposing Sanctions and the Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees, the court agrees with the analysis at pages twelve to fourteen of the Ruling re: Attorneys’ Fees.