EAST ST. LOUIS – U.S. Magistrate Judge Gilbert Sison sanctioned clients of C.J. Baricevic and Bill Daniel for discovery violations on June 10 and 11.
He ordered Baricevic’s client Leslie Raymond and Daniel’s client Roimero Harris to sit for depositions and pay for the lawyers and transcripts.
They must also pay their adversaries for the cost of enforcing discovery orders.
Sison warned Baricevic and Daniel that he might sanction them should they contribute to future deficiencies in discovery responses.
Each lawyer admitted some responsibility.
Baricevic stated at a hearing that he changed medications and had the coronavirus, and Daniel stated in briefs that his email didn’t work.
Baricevic’s case started last July, when he sued Thomas Industrial Coatings for Raymond in Madison County circuit court.
Raymond claimed Thomas Industrial committed sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual battery, retaliation, and infliction of distress as her employer.
Thomas Industrial removed the complaint to district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction as a Missouri citizen.
Thomas Industrial moved to dismiss claims of sexual assault, sexual battery, and infliction of distress.
Raymond didn’t respond and Sison granted the motion in September.
He set trial this July.
Raymond’s first response to interrogatories came late and included illegible documents and other deficiencies, according to Sison’s order for sanctions.
Two supplemental responses also contained deficiencies.
At a hearing in January, Baricevic assured Sison that discovery was being produced.
On Feb. 3, Thomas Industrial served a second set of interrogatories on Raymond.
The first asked whether she showed employees nude pictures of herself or others; the second asked whether she had sexual activity with an employee; the third asked whether she deleted pictures or messages from the cell phone of accused harasser Ronnie Bloodworth; the fourth asked whether there were witnesses to a single occasion; and the fifth asked whether there were witnesses to events through three months.
Raymond didn’t respond and at a hearing on March 29, Sison gave her 14 days.
On April 12, near midnight, Baricevic delivered supplemental answers.
He sent email stating Raymond authorized him to sign an authorization for access to
“I’ll get verified answers as soon as she signs,” Baricevic wrote.
On April 19, Thomas Industrial counsel Bryan Kaemmerer of Town and Country, Missouri, moved to compel discovery and impose sanctions.
Kaemmerer stated that Raymond resolved most disputes but three remained.
He claimed she didn’t verify her original or supplemental responses.
He claimed he had yet to receive authorization for her medical records and bills.
“Despite plaintiff’s counsel’s assurances, defendant Thomas Industrial Coatings has yet to receive her mobile phones so that it can conduct an appropriate forensic examination,” he wrote.
Kaemmerer raised a fourth dispute in a separate motion to compel responses to the interrogatories about sex and nudity.
Sison gave Raymond 14 days to respond to the motions and she didn’t respond.
Sison gave her four more days at hearing on May 21.
Sison wrote in his sanctions order that he asked Baricevic if the attorney or the party was predominately responsible for the dispute.
He wrote that Baricevic stated it was mostly the attorney.
“He has struggled with side effects from new medications and ongoing symptoms from Covid-19, both of which have impacted his ability to practice,” Sison wrote.
He found Raymond didn’t sign the documents he sent to her.
“As plaintiff has consistently failed to comply with court orders or engage in good faith discovery with defendant, the court finds that her conduct demonstrates a reckless disregard for the court’s orders constituting bad faith,” Sison wrote.
He warned that failure to comply could result in an adverse finding that she has no medical costs and no text messages relating to sexual harassment.
He directed Thomas Industrial to request admissions and ruled that if she doesn’t file a verified response, he would deem them admitted.
He wrote that Thomas Industrial could depose her at its convenience.
He postponed trial from October to February.
The suit that brought sanctions on Roimero Harris started in 2019, when Travelers sued for judgment against claims he filed from two fires.
Defense counsel Ellen Brooke of St. Louis wrote that Travelers issued a landlord policy to Harris for 2606 St. Louis Avenue in East St. Louis.
According to Travelers’ complaint, the dwelling sustained partial loss by an incendiary fire on July 24, 2018, and a second loss by incendiary fire on July 27, 2018.
Harris stated he had no written lease but he and a tenant agreed to a $650 monthly rent for a year.
He stated the tenant never paid and he was evicting her.
Travelers issued Harris and his mortgagee, Bank of America, two checks representing the actual cash value of the damage. Travelers paid Harris $7,800 for 12 months at $650 rent.
Travelers explained the availability of recoverable depreciation upon repair or replacement of the dwelling.
Harris, through attorney Daniel, sent letters demanding immediate payment of recoverable depreciation even though the dwelling wasn’t repaired.
He based his demand on his intent to buy a replacement dwelling for $170,000 in Cahokia.
He purported to have purchased 1929 Fleur de Lis Boulevard and claimed the sale was private.
A quit claim deed between Harris and owner Stephen Carraway cited an exemption for transfers where actual consideration is less than $100.
Carraway bought it for $82,000 in 2010.
Harris sought additional living expenses because he intended to move to the St. Louis Avenue property.
He sought double payment for removal of debris from fires three days apart and for landscaping.
Brooke later amended the complaint to allege material misrepresentations, fraudulent conduct, or false statements.
Sison set trial this July.
Last year, he tried to hold a hearing but no one showed up.
Sison gave the parties a week to explain, and Travelers responded in four days.
Daniel responded for Harris three days past deadline, stating he didn’t receive notice because email wasn’t working at his office.
Sison took no action against either side.
Brooke moved to compel responses to interrogatories and production requests in October, and Sison granted the motion in November.
Harris didn’t respond and Brooke moved for sanctions in December, proposing to strike his pleadings and enter default judgment.
Harris didn’t respond and in February, Sison ordered him to explain by March 2.
Daniel responded for him a month late and again stated his email wasn’t working.
Sison declared in his order for sanctions that procedural rules don’t permit a party to not respond to interrogatories.
“Harris’s silence demonstrates reckless indifference to the court’s orders, constituting bad faith,” he wrote.
He found Travelers could depose Harris at its convenience.
He found Daniel took responsibility for failure to respond to the sanctions motion but not for Harris’s failure to respond to interrogatories and production requests.
He found their failure to schedule Harris’s deposition raised an inference of intention to avoid summary judgment.
He wrote that failure to comply with his order could result in presumption of an admission of lack of merit in the claim.
He wrote that he’d consider whether certain facts or presumptions might make Harris’s case harder, “but would not serve to hobble him completely.”
He directed Travelers to file its interrogatories and production requests with him so he could ascertain whether he might admit facts or make presumptions.
He wrote that if he permitted Harris to respond to outstanding interrogatories, he would not accept any objections.
He canceled a July trial and wrote that he’d set a scheduling conference.