BOSS EXOTICS LLC, PLAINTIFFS, v. CROSTA AND PARTNERS LLC, D/B/A ROYALTY EXOTICS, CROSTA AND PARTNERS, LLC (CA), CROSTA AND PARTNERS, LLC (AK), LUXURY LEASE COMPANY, AND HOUSTON CROSTA DEFENDANTS CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1835-BK United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division Filed July 01, 2024 Counsel Brian Michael Wcislo, Wcislo Law Group PLLC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff. Casey S. Erick, Cowles & Thompson, Dallas, TX, Nathaniel Mack, III, Law Offices of Nathaniel Mack III PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant Crosta and Partners LLC. Casey S. Erick, Cowles & Thompson, Dallas, TX, for Defendants Luxury Lease Company, Houston Crosta. Toliver, Renee H., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the parties' consent to proceed before the United States magistrate judge, Doc. 14, Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, Doc. 74, is before the Court. For the reasons detailed herein, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. I. BACKGROUND This diversity action arises out of Plaintiff's purchase of a 2018 McLaren 720S (the “Vehicle”) from Defendants. According to the operative complaint, in February 2020, Defendants posted the Vehicle for sale on eBay. Doc. 39 at 4. Plaintiff contacted Defendant Houston Crosta (“Crosta”) about potentially purchasing the Vehicle and began to negotiate the terms of the purchase agreement. Doc. 39 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Crosta made numerous misrepresentations about the Vehicle, including that it had no mechanical problems and that the manufacturer's warranty remained in effect. Doc. 39 at 4. Plaintiff ultimately purchased the Vehicle for $135,000. Doc. 39 at 5. Shortly after receiving it, Plaintiff took the Vehicle to a McLaren dealership for inspection of suspected mechanical issues, which resulted in a repair estimate of more than $44,000.00. Doc. 39 at 6. Plaintiff also discovered that the manufacturer's warranty on the Vehicle had been revoked because Defendants had used it as a rental. Doc. 39 at 5. Accordingly, Plaintiff brought this action, asserting claims for (1) fraudulent inducement; (2) breach of contract, namely the Vehicle's bill of sale; (3) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”); (4) fraud by omission; and (5) alternatively, as to Crosta, negligent misrepresentation. Doc. 39 at 9-12. Plaintiff also claims the remaining four Defendants (the “Defendant Entities”) are merely alter egos of its co-owner/officer, Crosta, and of each other such that Crosta should be held liable for the wrongful actions of the Defendant Entities. Doc. 39 at 10-11. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY During the course of discovery, a dispute arose concerning various Defendants' responses, or lack therof, to Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production as well as issues surrounding the scheduling of several depositions, including those of non-parties Vijay Goli and Kirk Mendez.[1] In October 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Crosta and Partners, LLC, and Depositions of Vijay Goli, Kirk Mendez, Crosta and Partners, LLC (CA), Crosta and Partners, LLC (AK), Luxury Lease Company, and Houston Crosta and Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories to Crosta and Partners, LLC and Requests for Production and Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Crosta and Partners, LLC (CA), Crosta and Partners, LLC (AK), Luxury Lease Company, and Houston Crosta (the “Motion to Compel”). Doc. 59. Former Magistrate Judge Irma Ramirez issued an order requiring the parties to meet face to face to confer regarding the pertinent disputes and ordered Plaintiff to file a joint submission and agreed proposed order by October 30, 2023, addressing the issues resolved at the conference. Doc. 60. When Plaintiff failed to timely file the joint submission and proposed order, Judge Ramirez dismissed the Motion to Compel on November 1, 2023, due to Plaintiff's lack of compliance. Doc. 61. *2 On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration for Judge's Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (the “Motion to Reconsider”). Doc. 62. Therein, Plaintiff averred that the parties had fully resolved the outstanding discovery disputes during their conference, but Plaintiff neglected to file a proposed order and joint submission in the hope that it would obtain the discovery responses in the interim. Doc. 62 at 2-3. Plaintiff indicated in its certificate of conference that it still had not received Defendants' discovery responses. Doc. 64. Defendants did not respond to the Motion to Reconsider by Judge Ramirez's December 7, 2023 deadline. See Doc. 63. Shortly thereafter, the undersigned, following reassignment of the case, convened a status conference to address both motions. Based on the proffers of counsel, the Court granted the Motion to Compel and Motion to Reconsider and ordered (1) Defendants, as well as non-parties Mendez and Goli, to appear for deposition no later than January 22, 202[4]; and (2) Defendants to provide complete responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests as set forth in the Motion to Compel no later than January 12, 202[4] (“the December Order”). Doc. 72 at 3. The Court warned Defendants that if they failed to comply with the December Order, they risked the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b). Doc. 72 at 3. III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, averring that (1) Defendants, Mendez, and Goli were refusing to provide deposition availability dates; and (2) Defendants' discovery responses were “incomplete, evasive, and sometimes no response at all.” Doc. 74 at 4-5. Plaintiff thus seeks civil contempt sanctions against Defendants to coerce their compliance with the December Order. Doc. 74, passim. To that end, Plaintiff requests that (1) Defendants be fined “for each day they have violated the orders in an amount the Court determines is effective to achieve the goal” of such orders; (2) Mendez, Goli, Crosta and Partners, LLC, and all Defendants be ordered to appear for deposition; and (3) Defendants be ordered to provide complete responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests as set forth in the Motion to Compel. Doc. 74 at 5-6. Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a monetary or other compensatory sanction against Defendants for unduly delaying this case and wasting Plaintiff's resources to compel them to comply with the Court's orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 74 at 6. On June 10, 2024, the Court issued an electronic order, setting a hearing on the motion for June 13, 2024. Doc. 82. Upon Defendants' motion, Doc. 83, the Court granted a continuance and issued an Order to Show Cause, scheduling the hearing for June 27, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., Doc. 85. The Court specifically ordered defense counsel, Mendez, Goli, and all Defendants to “personally appear and show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt and ordered to pay monetary sanctions for violating” the December Order. Doc. 85 (emphasis in original). Approximately 90 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to begin, defense counsel's legal assistant notified the courtroom deputy that Mendez and Goli were unable to attend because they did not have enough time to book flights and make accommodations.[2] The assistant followed up with an email and attached Defendants' Motion for Continuance of Hearing Set for June 27, 2024. Doc. 86. The Court immediately informed defense counsel that the hearing would proceed as scheduled and denied the continuance. Doc. 88. The Court then granted Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, Doc. 74, on the record due to Defendants', Mendez's, and Goli's clear violations of the December Order. This order follows to memorialize the Court's findings. *3 Pursuant to the rulings made on the record, no later than July 12, 2024, Defendants are ORDERED to (1) file updated Certificates of Interested Persons; (2) amend their responses to Interrogatories 21 and 22 and RFP 3 of Plaintiff's first set of discovery requests; and (3) amend their responses to Interrogatories 1 and 2 and RFPs 2 and 5-7 of Plaintiff's second set of discovery requests. Defendants are further ORDERED to pay the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs Plaintiff expended in preparing for the unattended depositions (including fees for the court reporter and videographer) and in bringing the instant motion.[3] Finally, Goli, Mendez, Crosta and Partners LLC, Luxury Lease Company, and Crosta are ORDERED to appear for deposition no later than August 9, 2024. For their benefit, the Court will reiterate here what was stated on the record: If these depositions do not take place as ordered, the Court will consider imposing additional sanctions, up to and including (1) prohibiting Defendants from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters into evidence; (2) striking Defendants' pleadings in whole or part; and/or (3) rendering a default judgment against Defendants. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and stated on the record, Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, Doc. 74, is GRANTED IN PART. Footnotes [1] Mendez and Goli are alleged to be the registered officers of Defendant Crosta and Partners, LLC d/b/a Royalty Exotics. Doc. 39 at 1. [2] It is unclear why Crosta did not appear. [3] As discussed at the hearing, Plaintiff shall file a separate motion setting out those costs and fees with supporting documentation, which may be filed under seal.