Failure To Comply With Discovery Orders Results In Dismissal Of Pro Se Plaintiff's Case

Going pro se in the NC Business Court is a bad idea.  At least it was for the Plaintiff in Gillespie v. Majestic Transport, Inc., 2017 NCBC 43 who saw his claims dismissed (without prejudice) for failing to comply with the Court's discovery orders and was ordered to pay attorneys' fees to the Defendant.

Gillespie didn't start out in the Business Court without a lawyer.  His lawyer was allowed to withdraw in November 2016, and the Court ordered Gillespie to report within the next month regarding his efforts to retain a new lawyer.  He didn't make that report, stating later that he had "forgotten" to do so.  Op. ¶12.

Before the deadline for that report had run out, the Business Court granted a pending Motion to Compel, and ordered the Plaintiff to provide supplemental discovery responses and to provide a privilege log within ten days of the Order granting the Motion or within ten days of the appearance of new counsel.

Gillespie, without new counsel, didn't provide the material required by the discovery order.  He also didn't respond at all to Interrogatories served on him by the Defendant. The Defendant filed another Motion to Compel, this time requesting sanctions against Gillespie including  dismissal of his case.

Judge McGuire held a hearing on the second Motion to Compel in January 2017.  Gillespie appeared at the hearing, and explained his non-compliance by contending that "without legal representation, he did not understand his obligations."  Op. ¶12.  He said that he did not intend to represent himself, and asked for additional time to hire an attorney.

Judge McGuire said that he would not dismiss the case and that "[t]he Court desires to provide Gillespie with a final opportunity to retain counsel to represent him."  Op. ¶13.  He gave Gillespie a deadline of February 15th to retain new counsel and to have that new lawyer file a notice of appearance in the case.

When that deadline rolled around, Gillespie informed the Court "it has been impossible to retain new legal counsel,” and that he had  “elected to represent himself in matters of this case so that no further delays occur.”  Judge McGuire granted that request and ordered Gillespie to respond to some outstanding discovery and reminded him of a prior order requiring mediation to take place by March 31st.  He warned Gillespie that if he did not comply with these obligations, that the Court would consider “appropriate sanctions up to and including dismissal of Gillespie’s claims.”  Op. ¶15.

When Gillespie fell down on those obligations, Judge McGuire cut him no slack for proceeding pro se.  He said in ruling on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions that:

The Court is not unsympathetic to Gillespie’s current status as an unrepresented litigant, but notes that he consented to withdrawal of his counsel in this case. Gillespie also was provided with more than a reasonable amount of time to retain new counsel, but failed to do so. Ultimately, an individual who chooses to represent himself in the civil courts of our State must abide by the orders of those courts and by rules of procedure applicable to civil proceedings.

Op. ¶25.  Even so, Judge McGuire ruled that Gillespie's lack of assistance of counsel had "probably hampered his ability to comply with court rules," and that the dismissal would be without prejudice.  Id.

Although Mr. Gillespie might be relieved that he can refile his lawsuit, he can't be delighted at having to pay attorneys' fees to the Defendant.  But I was struck by the reasonableness of the  fees sought by Defendant's counsel.  They were $1265.50 for the first Motion to Compel (4.6 hours at $275 per hour), $770 for the Motion for Sanctions (2.8 hours at $275 per hour) and $385 for the second Motion to Compel (1.4 hours at $275).  Judge McGuire awarded a total of $2,421.00.

Would it have made a difference if Gillespie had been able to find new counsel to step into the case?  Maybe.

Tags:

When You Settle A Case, Don't "Over-Release" The Defendant

The parties to Security Camera Warehouse, Inc. v. Bowman, 2017 NCBC 38, had been adverse to each other in a previous lawsuit (not in the Business Court), which they settled.  Security Camera released Bowman, one of its former owners, from all claims in that settlement.  But during the settlement negotiations which resulted in the settlement of lawsuit #1, Bowman had control of Security Camera's computer server, and downloaded what Security Camera said was trade secret information (Security Camera's customer list and other information regarding those customers).

After the settlement was done, Bowman incorporated Defendant Arcdyn to compete with Security Camera, using the customer information he took during the settlement discussions.

Security Camera, understandably aggrieved, sued Bowman and Arcdyn on a variety of theories, including misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Defendants said that these claims were barred by the Release.  In his Opinion, Judge Conrad agreed and dismissed most of the claims.

Here are the terms of the Release: Security Camera and Nederlanden (who became the sole owner of Security Camera via the settlement) said that they:

generally release and forever discharge Bowman, his agents, heirs,successors and assigns, from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action of whatever kind or character which [Security Camera and Nederlanden] have, or may have in the future, against Bowman, based on any acts or events that have occurred on or before the execution of this Agreement, whether or not growing out of or connected in any way with operations or business transactions of [Security Camera].

Op. 8 (emphasis added).

Judge Conrad framed the issue as follows: "whether the parties’ mutual release bars recovery for the post-release use of a trade secret wrongfully acquired before the execution of the release."  Op. 24. 

Don't Release Claims Which You "May Have In The Future"

The Court dismissed as "untenable" Security Camera's  main argument that the release was not prospective.” The language contained in the Release, that it covered claims Security Camera “may have in the future," made this pretty clear.  Op. 28.

Judge Conrad noted that Security Camera had not limited the terms of the Release to preserve its trade secrets claims, and that the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets had happened before the execution of the Release. He said:

  • In negotiating the release, Security Camera could have required Bowman to return its property, reserved any potential trade-secret claims, or refused to release claims accruing after the execution of the Agreement.
  • It did not, and it is now far too late to import limitations that were not the subject of the parties’ bargain.

Order 30.

But not all of Security Camera''s claims were dismissed. The Court left standing a claim for the Defendants' interference with a website which the Plaintiff claimed it owned (SCWddns.com).  It said that the Defendants had disabled the website, and that it had to buy a new domain to restore its website.

Although the Defendants claimed that they owned the website, Judge Conrad found that there was an issue of fact on that point, and he refused to dismiss the claim.  Op. 42-43.

On the subject of releases, it's pretty common to release a party from all claims, whether "known or unknown" at the time of the release.  So, it was not out of the ordinary for Security Camera to give up claims it was unaware of that arose during the settlement negotiations.