Summary
denying application for cost bond even though applicant's "entitlement in principle" was established because the record did not support it would be entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount requested
Summary of this case from Master v. AciperOpinion
No. 01 Civ. 1290 (CSH).
March 9, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RLS Associates, LLC ("RLS") brings suit against United Bank of Kuwait PLC ("UBK" or "the Bank") for breach of a contractual agreement to pay a post-termination fee and for unjust enrichment. Presently before me are two motions, both by the Bank. The first is for an order requiring RLS to file an original bond to secure costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.2. I consider that motion in Part I of this opinion. The Bank's second motion is a request to depose Bruno Martorano by videoconference for the purpose of securing his testimony for trial. This motion is considered in Part II. For reasons stated below, defendant's first motion is denied, and its second motion is granted.
I
UBK seeks an order from this court directing RLS to post a bond to secure the costs of the Bank. In this district, such orders are governed by Local Civil Rule 54.2, which provides:
The court, on motion or on its own initiative, may order any party to file an original bond for costs or additional security for costs in such an amount and so conditioned as it may designate. For failure to comply with the order the court may make such orders in regard to non-compliance as are just, and among others the following: an order striking out pleadings or staying further proceedings until the bond is filed or dismissing the action or rendering a judgment by default against the non-complying party.
While there are no set guidelines for applying Rule 54.2, courts generally consider the following factors in determining whether to require a party to file a bond in pursuant to the rule: "(1) the financial condition and ability to pay of the party who would post the bond; (2) whether that party is a non-resident or foreign corporation; (3) the merits of the underlying claims; (4) the extent and scope of discovery; (5) the legal costs expected to be incurred; and (6) compliance with past court orders." Pfizer, Inc. v. Y2K Shipping Trading, Inc., 207 F.R.D. 23, 24 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), citing Johnson v. Kassovitz, No. 97 Civ. 5789, 1998 WL 655534, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 1998); see also Selletti v. Carey, 173 F.R.D. 96, 100-101 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Bressler v. Liebman, No. 96 Civ. 9310, 1997 WL 466553, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1997); Livnat v. Lavi, No. 96 Civ. 4967, 1997 WL 563799, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 1997); Beverly Hills Design Studio v. Morris, 126 F.R.D. 33, 36 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
At the outset, three of these factors appear to militate against requiring a bond. Plaintiff is not a non-resident or foreign corporation, there is no history of noncompliance with prior orders, and the extent and scope of discovery in this case, while perhaps extensive, is not particularly unusual in its magnitude. The Bank does not dispute any of these factors. I now consider what remains.
A. Plaintiff's ability to pay
According to defendant's counsel, Loren F. Selznick, Esq., during a telephone exchange with plaintiff's counsel, Michael H. Smith, Esq., Smith represented that he could "see no downside" for his client to continue this litigation. Allegedly, Smith informed Selznick that if UBK ultimately prevailed in this case, and consequently moved for attorneys' fees and costs (which UBK alleges to be substantial), UBK would never be able to recover due to RLS's lack of funds.
A partial exchange outlined in Selznick's declaration reads as follows:
Smith: You will never recover any amount from RLS.
Selznick: Why?
Smith: Doesn't have it. Your recovery against him is worthless.
Declaration of Loren F. Selznick, Oct. 26, 2004, at ¶ 4.
Attorneys' fees are of particular concern in this case, since both parties agree that the Consultancy Agreements which form the subject matter of this action contain a choice of law provision that they "shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England," an incorporation which includes the general rule under English law "that fees are awarded to the prevailing party." See RLS Assocs., LLC v. The United Bank of Kuwait PLC, No. 01 Civ. 1290 (CSH), 2003 WL 22801918, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2003). I shall revisit this issue in Part I.C of this opinion, infra, and assume for now that attorneys' fees must play a role in the bond analysis.
Concern arising from this telephone conversation led Selznick to commission two firms, Dun Bradstreet and C.F. Anderson, to investigate the financial condition of RLS. Both firms reported an inability to locate any assets belonging to RLS. See Declaration of Loren F. Selznick, Oct. 26, 2004, Exs. 2 3.
Smith denies making the statements Selznick attributes to him. According to Smith, when told that UBK's legal fees at the time were approximately $450,000, he answered, "RLS' fees did not come close to that," and that plaintiff "does not have that kind of money." Affidavit of Michael H. Smith, Nov. 19, 2004, at ¶ 25. He also disputes Selznick's claim that UBK could recover attorneys' fees connected to its appellate litigation and its motion for summary judgment. Id. Finally, Smith submits that Selznick's disclosure of their telephone exchange was improper based on Fed.R.Evid. Rule 408, which makes inadmissible, in certain contexts, evidence of settlement negotiations.
I do not find that Rule 408 makes Selznick's disclosure improper. Rule 408 makes evidence of settlement negotiations inadmissible "to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount." However, the rule does not exclude evidence offered "for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness," etc. Though it is true that demonstrating inability to pay "does not appear on the short list of permissible other purposes within Rule 408, that list is merely suggestive, and is not intended to be exclusive." EMI Catalogue P'ship v. CBS/Fox Co., No. 86 Civ. 1149 (PLK), 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7240, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 1996). I find Selznick's admission of her conversation with Smith to be within the confines of acceptable "other purposes" in Rule 408. And even accepting Smith's version of what had been said, he did assert, when faced with potential legal costs of $450,000, that his client "does not have that kind of money."
Moreover, it is telling that RLS offers nothing to refute the findings of UBK's two investigatory firms, which reported that RLS has no assets that could be located.
In light of these circumstances, I find that UBK has an understandable concern regarding RLS's real ability to pay any eventual attorneys' fees or costs, should UBK prevail in this case. In the ordinary instance, this weighs in favor of an order for a bond. See e.g., Atlanta Shipping Corp., Inc. v. Chemical Bank, 818 F.2d 240, 251 (2d Cir. 1987) (upholding lower court bond order based, in part, on plaintiff's status as "debtor in bankruptcy" and a perceived "high risk" that plaintiff would be "unable to pay the defendant's costs should defendant prevail"); Selletti v. Carey, 173 F.R.D. 96, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd, 173 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding, based in part upon a finding that plaintiff's "only identifiable asset is a small parcel of land valued at $500," that "there is a serious risk that [plaintiff] will be unable to pay the reasonable costs to which the defendants may be entitled should they prevail"); Bressler, 1997 WL 466553, at *4 (ordering bond upon assertion of plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff "didn't have a dime," an assertion "whether flippant or serious," which justified "the imposition of a bond requirement against Marino as well as Bressler on the basis of his professed inability to satisfy any sanctions that might be ordered").
However, I also note that nothing in this opinion should be construed as an indication of my ultimate opinion on the merits of underlying case itself. See Part I.B, infra.
B. Merits claims
RLS opposes UBK's request for a bond order on the grounds that UBK has not shown that RLS's claims are of "dubious merit." Pfizer, Inc., 207 F.R.D. at 25. Indeed, UBK did not attempt a merits-based argument in its initial memorandum in support of a bond order, and its terse argument in its reply brief is inconclusive. There are substantive issues in the underlying action that have not yet been resolved, and to which I currently intimate no opinion. For instance, on the issue of whether RLS's principal, Richard Swomley, made statements which the Bank reasonably believed were prejudicial to its interests, I reiterate my prior holding that "this issue is a fact-intensive question appropriate for jury resolution." RLS Assocs., LLC v. The United Bank of Kuwait PLC, No. 01 Civ. 1290 (CSH), 2003 WL 22251332, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2003). Defendant has not established that plaintiff's claims are of dubious merit. This weighs against a bond order.
C. Legal Costs Expected to be Incurred
Finally, the parties dispute the amount of the bond RLS would be required to post. In its notice of motion, UBK requests the amount be set at $569,000, based upon the $489,000 it has already expended, and $80,000 more it expects it will cost to bring the case to trial.
RLS makes several arguments in opposition. It contends, first, that attorneys' fees under UK law should not be considered part of "costs" under Rule 54.2, and second, that UBK's failure to break down or analyze its attorneys' fee claims in any fashion requires the Court to make premature findings in a complex area of UK law. See generally, Bensen v. Am. Ultramar Ltd., No. 92 Civ. 4420, 1997 WL 317343 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 1997). Third, RLS asserts that most of the amount UBK has already expended in this case is attributable to UBK's own "scorched earth" litigation tactics.
While Rule 54.2 speaks only of "costs," costs in this context may include attorneys' fees when recoverable by a statute. See, e.g., Selletti, 173 F.3d at 106 (holding that defendants' costs and attorneys' fees are potentially recoverable under the Copyright Act). Underlying the question whether Rule 54.2 allows recovery of attorneys' fees based on UK law is whether the English rule is of any moment at all in an American court — a question which I chose not to address in my most recent opinion. See 2003 WL 22801918, at *2 ("[A]ssuming without deciding that defendant's contentions about the applicability and effect of English law are correct . . .").
Other courts have ruled in circumstances similar to the present case, that under New York choice of law principles, English laws allowing recovery of attorneys' fees by the prevailing party are applicable. See Katz v. Berisford Int'l PLC, No. 96 Civ. 8695 (JGK), 2000 WL 959721 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2000); Csaky v. Meyer, No. 94 Civ. 8117, 1995 WL 494574 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1994); Browne v. Prentice Dry Goods, Inc., No. 84 Civ. 8081 (PKL), 1986 WL 6496 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 1986), at *3 ("While it is true that under the so-called `American Rule' attorneys' fees are not awarded to the successful litigant, this does not mean that an award of attorneys' fees under the `English Rule,' followed by Argentina, is repugnant to the policy of New York State.").
Having found that the English rule on attorneys' fees is consistent with New York choice of law principles and prior precedent, I see no reason why the English rule cannot be applied under Local Rule 54.2. Accord J. Barbour Sons, Ltd. v. Taftco, Inc., Civ. A. No. 87-2609, 1989 WL 49518 (E.D.Pa. May 8, 1989).
On the other hand, RLS is correct to point out that it would be much too simplistic to assume that UBK is entitled to all of its attorneys' fees as a matter of UK law. Regardless of the final outcome of this case, attorneys fees will have to be carefully determined in accordance with British law.
A balancing of the relevant factors persuades the Court that in this case, UBK has shown that in principle it is entitled to the protection of a bond to be posted by RLS. As noted, on the present record UBK has a justified concern about RLS's financial ability to pay UBK's costs if UBK prevails after trial. Moreover, since the English Rule applies, attorney's fees are included in the recoverable costs, and so the amount involved is potentially significant. Nor can it be said that UBK's denials of contractual liability to RLS are frivolous.
Contrary to RLS's argument, there is authority for the proposition that a party's apparent financial inability to pay prospective costs is sufficient in and of itself to justify an order requiring the posting of a cost bond under Rule 54.2. Judge Leisure reached that conclusion in Knight v. H.E. Yerkes and Assocs., Inc., 675 F. Supp. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), the first case UBK's brief cites on the point, which RLS's brief does not criticize or distinguish. In Knight, the record demonstrated that the ability of a plaintiff resident in Thailand to pay the defendant's anticipated recoverable costs in taking depositions abroad was problematic. Without discussing the merits of the case or any other factor, Judge Leisure ordered that the plaintiff post a cost bond under Local Rule 39, the precursor to Rule 54.2, stating succinctly that "[a]gainst this background, the Court believes that there is a substantial risk that plaintiff would be unable to pay defendant's costs should defendant prevail, and that plaintiff should therefore be required to file a bond for costs." Id. at 142. I reach the same conclusion in this case.
While UBK's entitlement in principle to a cost bond is thus established, it remains to consider what the amount should be in practice. UBK prays for a bond in the amount of $569,000, that being the total of $489,000 in legal fees and expenses UBK says has been incurred in the litigation to date, plus "at least $80,000" to cover the anticipated expenses of the trial. But I am not prepared to accept this amount automatically as the amount that would be recoverable as costs under the English Rule, and consequently determinative of the amount of the cost bond.
Judge Buchwald's thoughtful and thorough discussion of the English Rule in Bensen, 1997 WL 317343, at *7, is instructive. Citing and quoting several law journal articles, Judge Buchwald observed that
the rule is not just a simple fee-shifting provision. . . . While the English rule is typically described as a "loser pays" system, the application of the cost-shifting principle is much more complicated than the simple phrase "loser pays" implies. . . . [E]ven if the losing party has the wherewithal to pay, there is a significant difference between the costs incurred and the recovery assessed by the "taxing master." The loser should not be expected to pay more than the minimum expenses necessarily incurred by the winner, whereas the prevailing counsel can charge his client the maximum fee.
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This discussion quite strongly suggests that the invoices for legal services and expenses rendered by its counsel to UBK might not be, indeed probably would not be, assessed in their full amounts against RLS by an English "taxing master" (a title with Dickensian resonance), unless the taxing master was satisfied that those charges constituted "the minimum expenses necessarily incurred by" UBK, the prospective winner.
In these circumstances, if UBK wishes to press its application for a cost bond, it must demonstrate that under the contractually governing United Kingdom law and practice, an English taxing master (or other competent authority) would probably award UBK as the prevailing party its attorney's fees and expenses in the amount specified in the cost bond to be posted in this Court. Neither this Court not American counsel for the parties are competent to express a view on that subject. UBK must support its suggested bond amount by an affidavit or affidavits from English solicitors or barristers. If such submissions are filed and served, RLS will be given a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposing affidavits by English experts, if so advised.
It follows that UBK's motion for an order pursuant to Local Rule 54.2 is denied on the present record, without prejudice to renewal upon presentation of the further proof described infra.
I note in passing that there is apparently an alternative basis upon which UBK could have sought a cost bond. In J. Barbour Sons, Ltd. v. Taftco, Inc., No. Civ.A. 87-2609, 1989 WL 49518 (E.D.Pa. May 8, 1989), the clothing distribution contract between the parties provided that the contract would be governed by English law. The court granted plaintiff's motion for an order directing the financially stressed defendant to post a cost bond because "[a]n English statute provides that a plaintiff or counterclaiming defendant should post a security bond when it appears that the party would be unable to pay the other party's costs (including attorney's fees)." Id., at *3. In the case at bar, RLS and UBK having contractually selected UK law as the governing law, it would seem that UBK could have relied upon the English statute to which the district court referred in Barbour. But I need not pursue that possibility further because Local Rule 54.2 is equally available to UBK and is not in derogation of UK law.
II
Defendant's second motion concerns the testimony of Bruno Martorano, formerly a senior officer of Ahli United Bank B.S.C., the parent company of UBK, and a Director of the IIBU Fund II PLC. Defendant alleges that as the former Deputy Chief Officer of the Bank, Martorano was witness to key information concerning plaintiff's cause of action, and therefore would be a critical witness in its defense. Martorano is no longer employed by the bank or its parent company. He now works and resides in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. According to UBK, Martorano is unwilling to travel to New York in order to provide live testimony under oath. However, he has agreed to be deposed by way of videoconference in order to secure his trial testimony.During the October telephone conference, it became clear that prior to taking Martorano's video testimony, the Bank would have to establish by what authority under the rules I could direct such deposition to take place. That authority, as the Bank notes in its motion papers, is found in Fed.R.Civ.P. 32, which states in pertinent part:
(a) Use of Depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions:
(3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds:
. . .
(B) that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the United States, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition; or
. . .
(D) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or
(E) upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used.
Ostensibly, Rule 32 is a discovery rule, which has its roots in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d). See United States v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 90 F.R.D. 377, 381 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). One could argue, therefore, that UBK's requested deposition is barred by the expiration of the discovery deadline. Indeed, some courts have held as much. See e.g., Henkel v. XIM Products, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 556 (D.Minn. 1991); and Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA, 190 F.R.D. 556 (S.D.Cal. 1999). However, the majority of courts considering this issue have made what can only be described as a federal common law distinction between "discovery depositions" and "trial depositions" (or alternatively, "preservation depositions"), and have held the latter category permissible even after the discovery deadline had passed.
For instance, in Estenfelder v. Gates Corp., 199 F.R.D. 351 (D. Colo. 2001), a highly instructive and useful opinion on this subject, defendant sought to take preservation depositions of four of its former employees who resided in Europe. Like Martorano in the present case, each of the would-be deponents in that case no longer worked at the defendant corporation, each resided in a foreign continent, and none could be compelled through subpoena to attend trial. Like the present case, the deadline for discovery had passed by the time defendant made its motion. Noting that "courts cannot ignore a party's need to preserve testimony for trial, as opposed to the need to discover evidence, simply because the period for discovery has expired," id. at 355 (emphasis in original), the court granted defendant's motion. It even went so far as to note, "some discovery may occur during a deposition which is conducted for purposes of preserving the testimony of a witness, but if the primary purpose of the deposition is to preserve testimony for trial, the deposition should not be disallowed simply because of that potential eventuality." Id.
There is also precedent in this circuit for the taking of preservation depositions. In Manley v. Ambase Corp., 337 F.3d 237, 247 (2d Cir. 2003), the Second Circuit permitted parties to depose defendant's former chairman "once as part of the discovery process and again pursuant to a de bene esse proceeding ordered by the court when it appeared that the eighty-year old California resident would not travel to New York for trial," the latter deposition being one taken "in anticipation of a future need." See Black's Law Dictionary 408 (7th ed. 1999).
In this case, it is clear that defendant's proposed deposition of Martorano would serve the purpose of testimony preservation rather than discovery. Martorano was in senior management at UBK's parent company prior to his departure. While he was still an employee, there was no reason for the Bank to depose Martorano, as it knew the substance of his testimony, and intended to present him as a live witness at trial. Defendant attests that Martorano has key information regarding the circumstances of plaintiff's case, and remains a critical witness. The only reason it seeks to depose him is that he has now left the Bank and works in Dubai, and is unwilling to travel to New York for live in-court testimony.
Plaintiff's position is that Rule 32 has been, in effect, superceded by a 1996 amendment to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 43(a) which provides that "[t]he court may, for good cause shown in compelling circumstances and upon appropriate safeguards, permit presentation of testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location." Prior to 1996, the rules did not provide for a witness to testify via live video.
More accurately, RLS's position is that Martorano should only testify by personal appearance a trial. However, plaintiffs' further position is that should the Court allow Martorano to testify by anything other than personal appearance, it should only be by way of live video testimony.
Certainly, there are policy reasons why live, in court testimony would be preferred over prerecorded testimony. See Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 90 F.R.D. at 381 ("There is a strong preference for live testimony being recognized by the courts, as it provides the trier of fact the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness."). However, it is clear that Rules 43(a) and 32(a) are meant to compliment each other; and depending on the nature of the case and the circumstances involved, one procedure may be preferred over another. In fact, the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1996 Amendment of Rule 43(a) states that "[o]rdinarily depositions, including video depositions, provide a superior means of securing the testimony of a witness who is beyond the reach of a trial subpoena" (emphasis added); superior, that is, to a contemporaneous transmission of a witness's testimony.
In the present case, a contemporaneous transmission of Martorano's testimony would be highly inconvenient, due to the large time difference between New York and Dubai. The greater distance between court and witness also leads to a greater likelihood of technical problems arising, which would interfere with the flow of the trial and cause unnecessary delays — problems which might better be handled in a deposition rather than during trial.
Under these circumstances, I grant defendant's motion to obtain the deposition testimony of Martorano by way of videoconference. Counsel for both parties are directed to confer with each other and make arrangements with regard to an appropriate time and place within which to conduct the deposition, as well as proper administration and procedure by which the deposition shall ensue. I do not doubt that they will make such arrangements in good faith.
Counsel are directed to advise the Court by letter, not later than April 15, 2005, with respect to the present status of the case, with particular emphasis on its readiness for trial.
It is SO ORDERED.