Sanctions

Subscribe to Sanctions

As litigators in the Commercial Division, everyone knows that discovery can be particularly burdensome and time consuming.  This is especially true when you have clients that are very protective of their information.  The Commercial Division already has anticipated this by offering attorneys a model confidentiality agreement, which in some cases can be further negotiated by the parties for their additional protection.

In Callsome Solutions Inc. v. Google Inc., the parties, as Google would come to regret, included an Attorneys’ Eyes Only (“AEO”) provision in their confidentiality agreement.  Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Andrea Masley scolded and sanctioned Google for its AEO designation of hundreds of documents and thousands of lines of deposition testimony.  The Court stated that the “AEO designation was reserved for truly secret documents” and that it should be used “as sparingly as possible.”  This is because “improper designations, not only delay, but also impact. . . the communications between [client] and its attorney.”   Therefore, in designating documents AEO, litigators must take careful consideration to limit the documents with that designation and make sure those documents are only designated in good faith.

In Callsome, the parties entered into stipulated confidentiality agreement that called for two tiers of confidentiality: (1) confidential; and (2) highly confidential – attorneys’ eyes only.   The latter designation was designed to protect confidential information that is “extremely sensitive.”  After Google designated hundreds of documents and thousands of lines of deposition testimony, the plaintiff requested that Google de-designate groups of documents and testimony, Google then engaged in a “slow trickle” of de-designation.

In issuing sanctions against Google, it was not just Google’s over-designations that irritated the court, it was also the “slow trickle” of corrections.  Specifically, the Court found that this “trickle” did not “rectify the initial improper designations.”  Further, Google even attempted to use the corrections as a negotiation tactic within the litigation, attempting to extract concessions from the plaintiff.  The Court found that “[n]o public policy is served by crediting Google’s purported offer to compromise. . .” because “AEO designations are not negotiable.”

A party cannot over designate documents then hold the improperly designated documents hostage until the adversary surrenders.  Such conduct will not be countenanced by this court.

The Court held that “Google’s conduct flouts widely accepted rules of civility embedded in New York litigation and in particular the Commercial Division,” and that it “effectively prevented the expeditious resolution of this litigation.”  The Court further held that Google engaged in frivolous conduct warranting sanctions under 22 NYCRR Section 130-1.1.

The first takeaway here is that confidential designations of any kind, particularly AEO designations should be made in good faith.  Second is that after designating documents AEO, when faced with a request to de-designate, you should ensure that you do not delay the litigation by refusing to do so or attempt to use your designations as a negotiating tactic.  Make sure you have a good faith basis for your designation, and stick to your guns.

 

However, if you believe that a document does not warrant such designation, but your client is still skittish, you can, as the Court suggested, amend (or draft) the confidentiality agreement to guarantee your client further protections such as providing for financial penalties in the event of a breach.  Over designation only delays litigation and shifts the burden to your opponent, which is never appropriate.

shutterstock_762790126

In a recent decision, Justice Scarpulla of the New York County Commercial Division declined to exercise personal jurisdiction over several Japanese entities, and even imposed sanctions on the plaintiff for attempting to relitigate its already-decided claims in New York.

Defendant ANA Aircraft Technics, Co., Ltd. (“ANA Technics”) maintained a fleet of airplanes owned and operated by its parent, All Nippon Airways, Co., Ltd. (“ANA”).  In early 2003, ANA Technics entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with plaintiff Kyowa Seni, Co., Ltd. (“Kyowa”), pursuant to which Kyowa agreed, among other things, to manufacture seat covers for ANA Technics.

After Kyowa began manufacturing the seat covers, ANA Technics allegedly directed Kyowa to: (1) affix TSO C127a labels onto the seat covers, demonstrating that the seat covers had been flammability tested in accordance with U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regulations, and (2) execute certificates affirming the seat covers had been flammability tested.

Kyowa alleged it initially executed the certificates because it believed the required testing was performed, but subsequently requested confirmation that ANA Technics had conducted all of the necessary fire tests and possessed the certifications necessary to obtain the FAA labels. When ANA Technics failed to respond to Kyowa’s requests, Kyowa informed ANA Technics that it would not execute any additional certificates until it received confirmation that the testing was performed.

On October 1, 2004, ANA Technics terminated the MOU, claiming that Kyowa’s work was “substandard.” Kyowa brought an action in Japan (the “Japanese Action”) alleging, among other things, that ANA Technics terminated the MOU to conceal the unlawful TSO C127a labeling. Ultimately, the Japanese Action was dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld on appeal.

Kyowa then brought an action against ANA Technics and other related entities (collectively, the “ANA Companies”) in New York Supreme Court for fraud based on the same acts and transactions set forth in the Japanese Action. The ANA Companies moved to dismiss arguing, among other things, lack of personal jurisdiction. The ANA Companies also moved for sanctions against Kyowa on the ground that Kyowa’s lawsuit was an attempt to relitigate the same claims which were dismissed in the Japanese Action.

First, Justice Scarpulla rejected Kyowa’s argument that the ANA Companies were subject to general jurisdiction merely because the defendant companies were registered in New York and appointed the Secretary of State as their agent for service of process. According to the Court, the ANA Companies’ “simple registration in New York is an insufficient ground for this Court to exercise general jurisdiction over them.” Moreover, the fact that the ANA Companies, which are all incorporated and headquartered in Japan, derive some revenue from their New York flight operations “is plainly insufficient to render the ANA Companies ‘essentially at home’ in New York”.

Second, the Court declined to exercise specific jurisdiction over the ANA Companies under either CPLR §§ 302(a)(1) (transaction of business) or 302(a)(2) (tortious acts committed within the state). Specifically, the Court held there was no “articulable nexus” or “substantial relationship” between New York and Kyowa’s claims arising out of ANA Technics’ termination of the MOU.  And, the Court noted that Kyowa failed to allege any tortious act that the ANA Companies committed in New York. Indeed, the MOU was executed in Japan, any alleged misrepresentations occurred in Japan, the seat covers were manufactured in Japan, and any alleged harm to Kyowa occurred in Japan.

Last, the Court agreed that sanctions were warranted under 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 because the “action is meritless and without a good faith basis.” According to the Court, “there is simply no basis for a New York court to assert jurisdiction over a dispute between Japanese entities, a dispute which has no specific connection to New York or its citizens.” Importantly, the Court noted that Kyowa’s claims were already fully litigated and disposed of in the Japanese Action.

As demonstrated in Kyowa Seni, Justices in the Commercial Division have very little patience for litigants who assert frivolous arguments and attempt to relitigate previously decided claims.  While the result in this case may seem harsh to some, a full reading of the Court’s decision reveals that Justice Scarpulla gave plaintiff the opportunity to withdraw its action and avoid sanctions.  Despite fair warning, Plaintiff declined to do so.

New Rules Shutterstock_317335106One aspect of the Commercial Division that makes it a highly desirable forum for litigators and litigants alike is its focus on the efficient administration of justice. The Commercial Division Advisory Council (the “Advisory Council”), established by New York’s Chief Judge to make recommendations to improve and enhance the Commercial Division, recently proposed three amendments to the Rules of the Commercial Division that would each further this objective.

Standard Alternative Forum Selection Clauses

In light of concerns that were raised after the Chief Administrative Judge issued an Administrative Order, dated March 6, 2017, adopting the Advisory Committee’s September 2016 proposal to add a sample forum selection clause designating the Commercial Division as the chosen forum, the Advisory Committee recently issued a revised proposal. The concerns centered on the potential for the original sample forum selection clause to limit commercial litigants’ access to the New York federal courts. The new proposal addresses this by including two sample forum selection clauses: one designates the Commercial Division exclusively as the chosen forum, while the other provides that the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of either the Commercial Division or the New York federal courts.

 Further Support For Commercial Division Justices to Impose Sanctions

Referencing the finding of the Chief Judge’s Task Force on Commercial Litigation in the 21st Century that sanctions are often underutilized in Commercial Division Cases, the Advisory Council proposed an amendment to the Commercial Division Rules intended to provide additional support for Commercial Division judges to impose sanctions. The proposed amendment, which identifies “the need to conserve client resources, to promote efficient resolution of matters, and to increase respect for the integrity of the judicial process” expressly authorizes Commercial Division judges to “impose sanctions . . . against parties (or counsel) who fail to comply with case management deadlines and other discovery orders.”

Attorney Certifications Regarding ADR

Finally, the Advisory Council has also proposed a new rule aimed at increasing ADR utilization in the Commercial Division. The proposed rule would require attorneys to certify at the preliminary conference, and at each compliance or status conference, that they have discussed ADR options with their client(s) and to state whether their client(s) is willing pursue mediation during the litigation.  If the parties are both willing to mediate their dispute, they would be required to jointly propose a date by which they will select a mediator, but does not require that they set a deadline for the mediation to begin.