No Shepards SignalAs of: June 19, 2015 10:17 PM EDT

Howard v. Offshore LiftboatsUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

June 18, 2015, Decided; June 18, 2015, Filed

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4811; 13-6407; 14-1188 SECTION E (5)

Reporter2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79223

CALVIN HOWARD, ET AL., Plaintiff VERSUSOFFSHORE LIFTBOATS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants.APPLIES TO: ALL CASES

Core Terms

depositions, sanctions, magistrate judge, attorneys, notice,clearly erroneous, judges decision, argues

Counsel: [*1] For Calvin Howard, Plaintiff(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Stephen Michael Chouest,LEAD ATTORNEY, J. Rand Smith, Jr., Chouest Law Firm,Metairie, LA; Eric Jason Allen, Ryan Zehl, Zehl &Associates, PC, Houston, TX; Kevin C. Haynes, PRO HACVICE, Fitts Zehl, LLP (Post Oak Blvd), Houston, TX.

For Raymond Howard, 14-1188, Consol Plaintiff(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): John D. Sileo, LEADATTORNEY, John D. Sileo, Attorney at Law, New Orleans,LA; Frank A. Silvestri, John Paul Massicot, M. DamienSavoie, Silvestri & Massicot, New Orleans, LA.

For K & K Offshore, LLC, as Owner Pro Hac Vice andOperator of the M/V Contender, praying for exonerationfrom and/or limitation of liability - 13-6407, ConsolPetitioner (2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Anthony John Staines,LEAD ATTORNEY, Corey Patrick Parenton, James A.Crouch, Jr., Jeff Daboval Peuler, Staines & Eppling(Metairie), Metairie, LA.

For Offshore Liftboats, LLC, Defendant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Robert Seth Reich, LEADATTORNEY, Lawrence R. Plunkett, Jr., Michael T.Wawrzycki, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC, Metairie, LA.

For K & K Offshore, LLC, Defendant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Anthony John Staines, LEADATTORNEY, Corey Patrick Parenton, James A. Crouch, Jr.,[*2] Jeff Daboval Peuler, Staines & Eppling (Metairie),

Metairie, LA.

For P&M Marine, LLC, Atlantic Specialty InsuranceCompany, Markel American Insurance Company, ProcenturyInsurance Company, Navigators Insurance Company, UnitedStates Fire Insurance Company, Lloyds Underwriters, TorusInsurance Company UK Limited, Defendants(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Jeff Daboval Peuler, Staines &Eppling (Metairie), Metairie, LA.

For Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, and/or,Defendant (2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Jon Daniel Picou,LEAD ATTORNEY, Cory Thomas Stuart, Wilson LewisMaloz, III, Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson, Lonero, LLC,Metairie, LA.

For Offshore Liftboats, LLC, 14-1188, Consol Defendant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Lawrence R. Plunkett, Jr.,Michael T. Wawrzycki, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC,Metairie, LA.

For K&K Offshore, LLC, 14-1188, Consol Defendant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): James A. Crouch, Jr., Staines &Eppling (Metairie), Metairie, LA.

For Offshore Liftboats, LLC, Counter Claimant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Robert Seth Reich, LEADATTORNEY, Lawrence R. Plunkett, Jr., Michael T.Wawrzycki, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC, Metairie, LA.

For K & K Offshore, LLC, Counter Defendant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): [*3] Anthony John Staines,LEAD ATTORNEY, Corey Patrick Parenton, James A.Crouch, Jr., Jeff Daboval Peuler, Staines & Eppling(Metairie), Metairie, LA.

For Offshore Liftboats, LLC, 13-6407, Consol Claimant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Robert Seth Reich, LEADATTORNEY, Lawrence R. Plunkett, Jr., Michael T.Wawrzycki, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC, Metairie, LA.

For Diagnostic Management Affiliates Preferred ProviderOrganization, L.L.C., Movant (2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN):

Courtesy of TenThousandDepositions.com

Normand Francis Pizza, LEAD ATTORNEY, Andrew RobertCapitelli, Milling Benson Woodward, LLP (Mandeville),Mandeville, LA.

For Calvin Howard, 13-6407, Consol Movant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Stephen Michael Chouest,LEAD ATTORNEY, J. Rand Smith, Jr., Chouest Law Firm,Metairie, LA; Kevin C. Haynes, PRO HAC VICE, FittsZehl, LLP (Post Oak Blvd), Houston, TX.

For Offshore Liftboats, LLC, Cross Claimant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Robert Seth Reich, LEADATTORNEY, Lawrence R. Plunkett, Jr., Michael T.Wawrzycki, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC, Metairie, LA.

For Bay South, Inc., Cross Claimant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Randell E. Treadaway, LEADATTORNEY, Brad D. Ferrand, Brett M. Bollinger, MichelleMarie ODaniels, Zaunbrecher Treadaway, LLC (Covington),[*4] Covington, LA.

For Offshore Liftboats, LLC, Cross Defendant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Robert Seth Reich, LEADATTORNEY, Lawrence R. Plunkett, Jr., Michael T.Wawrzycki, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC, Metairie, LA.

For Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, and/or,Cross Defendant (2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Jon DanielPicou, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cory Thomas Stuart, WilsonLewis Maloz, III, Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson, Lonero,LLC, Metairie, LA.

For Tammany Oil & Gas, LLC, Cross Claimant(2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN): Bradley Joseph Schlotterer,LEAD ATTORNEY, Dylan Tuggle Thriffiley, Sean T.McLaughlin, Kean Miller LLP (New Orleans), New Orleans,LA.

For K&K Offshore, LLC, as Owner Pro Hac Vice andOperator of the M/V Contender, praying for exonerationfrom and/or limitation of liability, Petitioner(2:13-cv-06407-SM-MBN): Anthony John Staines, LEADATTORNEY, James A. Crouch, Jr., Jeff Daboval Peuler,Staines & Eppling (Metairie), Metairie, LA.

For Offshore Liftboats, LLC, per doc #50 in 13-4811,Claimant (2:13-cv-06407-SM-MBN): Robert Seth Reich,LEAD ATTORNEY, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC,Metairie, LA; Christy L. Johnson, Brown Sims, PC (NewOrleans), New Orleans, LA.

For Calvin Howard, Movant (2:13-cv-06407-SM-MBN):[*5] Stephen Michael Chouest, LEAD ATTORNEY,

J. Rand Smith, Jr., Chouest Law Firm, Metairie, LA.

For Raymond Howard, Plaintiff (2:14-cv-01188-SM-MBN):John D. Sileo, LEAD ATTORNEY, John D. Sileo, Attorneyat Law, New Orleans, LA; Frank A. Silvestri, John PaulMassicot, M. Damien Savoie, Silvestri & Massicot, NewOrleans, LA.

For K&K Offshore, LLC, Defendant(2:14-cv-01188-SM-MBN): James A. Crouch, Jr., Staines &Eppling (Metairie), Metairie, LA.

Judges: SUSIE MORGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE.

Opinion by: SUSIE MORGAN

Opinion

ORDER

On March 4, 2015, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiffsmotion for sanctions1 and sanctioned Mr. RobertReichcounsel for Offshore Liftboats, LLCfor hisconduct at the depositions of Calvin Howard, RaymondHoward, and Sylvester Richardson.2 The magistrate judgefined Mr. Reich $1,500 and prohibited him from participatingin future depositions in these consolidated cases. Offshorehas appealed the ruling to this Court. For the followingreasons, the ruling is affirmed.

With the consent of the presiding district judge, a magistratejudge may adjudicate non-dispositive pre-trial motions.3The magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in resolvingsuch motions.4 The district [*6] judge may reverse only if

1 R. Doc. 1782 R. Doc. 200.3 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A).4 McCallon v. BP Am. Prod. Co., Nos. 05-0597, C/W 05-0700, 2006 WL 3246886, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov.8, 2006).

Page 2 of 42015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79223, *4

James Patrick Garrity

the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.5 In orderto meet this high standard, the district judge must be leftwith a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has beencommitted.6 Mr. Reich argues the magistrate judges rulingshould be reversed for five reasons.

I. No Due Process Violation

First, he contends the ruling violated his right toconstitutional due process. According to Mr. Reich,Plaintiffs motion for sanctions was limited to (1) a complaintthat Offshore provided late notice of Mr. Richardsonsdeposition and imposed undue time limitations on thedeposition, and (2) a request for costs.7 Because themagistrate judge also considered Mr. Reichs conduct indepositions other than Mr. Richardsons and imposed reliefbeyond what was specifically requested, Mr. Reich contendshe did not receive sufficient notice regarding the potentialbases for sanctions.

The Court finds Mr. Reich received adequate notice that hisconduct at Mr. Richardsons deposition and at the HowardPlaintiffs depositions was in question. As a preliminary[*7] matter, Plaintiffs motion was not limited to an attackon late notice and time limitations regarding Mr.Richardsons deposition. The motion also took issue withMr. Reichs conduct at the deposition, specifically, lobb[ing]speaking objections that appear on approximately 63 pagesof the [deposition] transcript and consume 740 lines oftext.8 Additionally, the motion complained at length of Mr.Reichs conduct at the depositions of Calvin Howard andRaymond Howard.9 The transcripts of all three depositionswere attached to the motion.10 Notice that the ruling on themotion for sanctions would focus on the three depositionswas also given at a hearing on various motions to quash onFebruary 11, 2015. During that hearing, the magistratejudge noted counsels inability to behave professionally atdepositions and ordered all attorneys, including Mr. Reich,

to be present at oral argument on the motion for sanctions.In anticipation of that hearing, the magistrate ordered theparties to provide him with the videos of all three depositions.Under these circumstances, the magistrate judges decisionto impose sanctions was consistent with the mandates ofprocedural due process.11

Mr. Reich also argues the magistrate judge erred by imposingnon-monetary sanctions because Plaintiffs motion onlyrequested monetary sanctions. Both the factual and legalpredicate of this argument are mistaken. Regarding theformer, Plaintiffs motion requested monetary relief as wellas whatever the Court deems sufficient to deter similarconduct in the future.12 Regarding the latter, Mr. Reichcites no authority for the proposition that a court may onlyimpose the sanctions specifically requested by the movingparty. The magistrate judges decision to imposenonmonetary sanctions was not clearly erroneous or contraryto law.

II. Referral to Disciplinary Committee Not RequiredSecond, Mr. Reich argues that prohibiting him fromparticipating in depositions in this case is tantamount todisqualification [*9] from the practice of law and requires ahearing before the Lawyer Disciplinary Committee of theEastern District of Louisiana. Mr. Reich cites no authority insupport of this argument and relies solely on his ownwarped interpretation of the Rules for Lawyer DisciplinaryEnforcement of the Eastern District of Louisiana. But Mr.Reich ignores Rule 1.4, which provides in pertinent part that[n]othing contained in these Rules restricts this court inexercising the power to maintain control over proceedings.There is nothing in the Disciplinary Rules purporting tolimit a judges ability to impose sanctions specificallyauthorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Themagistrate judges failure to refer this matter to theDisciplinary Committee was not clearly erroneous orcontrary to law.

5 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).6 Yelton v. PHI, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 374, 376 (E.D. La. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).7 See R. Doc. 200-1, p. 2-3.8 R. Doc. 178-1, p. 3.9 [*8] See id. at p. 4-7.10 See R. Doc. 178-6, 178-7, 178-8.11 Even if the magistrate judge erred by failing to give Mr. Reich adequate notice, that error was harmless. Mr. Reich appealed themagistrate judges decision to this Court. At Mr. Reichs request, the Court granted oral argument. Thus, Mr. Reich was given ampleopportunity to contest the bases for the magistrate judges sanctions.12 R. Doc. 178-1, p. 10.

Page 3 of 42015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79223, *6

James Patrick Garrity

III. No Misinterpretation of Mr. Reichs Conduct at theDepositions

Third, Mr. Reich argues the magistrate judge incorrectlyinterpreted the deposition transcripts.13 In support of thisargument, Mr. Reich cherry-picks certain excerpts andprovides a revisionist history of what they really mean. TheCourt has reviewed the transcripts in detail and is appalledby Mr. Reichs strong-arm tactics and utter disregard [*10]for civility. The magistrate judges interpretation of thedeposition transcripts was not clearly erroneous.

IV. The Sanctions Imposed are Authorized by the FederalRules

Fourth, Mr. Reich contends the rule under which he wassanctionedRule 30(d)(2)does not authorize the type ofsanction imposed in this case. Rule 30(d)(2) authorizes afederal court to impose an appropriate sanctionincludingthe reasonable expenses and attorneys fees incurred by anypartyon a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates thefair examination of the deponent. As demonstrated by theplain wording of the Rule, sanctions are not limited toexpenses and attorneys fees. Use of the word includingdemonstrates expenses and attorneys fees are but oneexample of an appropriate sanction authorized by theRule. The non-monetary sanctions ordered in this case areappropriate, because previous monetary sanctions againstMr. Reich for deposition misconduct have clearly failed toyield adequate deterrence.14 The magistrate judges decision

to sanction Mr. Reich under Rule 30(d)(2) was neitherclearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

V. No Prejudice to Offshore [*11]Finally, Mr. Reich argues the sanction unduly prejudicesOffshore by depriving Offshore of its counsel of choice. ButMr. Reich is only prohibited from participating indepositions. He is free to argue motions, attend statusconferences, and represent his client at trial. Moreover,excluding Mr. Reich, Offshore has enrolled five attorneys inthis case. Surely some combination of those attorneys canhandle the remaining depositions in this case. Thus, anyprejudice to Offshore is minimal and, more importantly,significantly outweighed by the importance of sending aclear message to Mr. Reich that his rude and obstructionistbehavior in depositions cannot continue.

CONCLUSIONFor the reasons previously stated;

IT IS ORDERED that the magistrate judges decision isAFFIRMED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of June, 2015./s/ Susie Morgan

SUSIE MORGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 R. Doc. 200-1, p. 8.14 See R. Doc. 193, p. 5-6 (detailing the sanctions levied against Mr. Reich).

Page 4 of 42015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79223, *9

James Patrick Garrity