Motion To Augment The Record To Include The Video, One Day After The Appellate Argument, Was Deemed Untimely.
Genesis Media, LLC v. Misle, Case No. B294620 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 10, 2019) (unpublished) is an appeal from a discovery sanction where an inadequate appellate record and untimely motion to augment sealed the fate of the sanctioned parties.
However, the facts are interesting to say the least.
Plaintiff Genesis Media, whose founder was Howard Misle, filed a breach of contract action against Ownzones Media and an individual in connection with Ownzones’ agreement to produce and operate a cannabis-focused media and lifestyle business. Defendant Ownzones noticed Mr. Misle’s videotaped deposition in Las Vegas at the defense firm which had an armed security guard in the firm’s lobby. A kerfuffle then ensued, with Mr. Misle apparently leaving the deposition room before any question could be answered based on the security guard’s presence in the law firm lobby. Ultimately, plaintiff’s attorney terminated the deposition because the security guard was not removed from the lobby. Plaintiff moved to compel the deposition and for resultant sanctions, even though no protective order motion was filed by the defense (although defense counsel claimed he suspended the deposition in order to seek a protective order). The lower court reviewed the deposition video, granting the motion to compel and sanctioning Mr. Misle, plaintiff, and plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $11,000—expressly finding that the deposition video confirmed defendant counsel’s account of events leading to the motion to compel.
Mr. Misle and plaintiff’s counsel appealed, but they failed to designate the deposition video. Big mistake. The sanctions award was affirmed based on an inadequate record. However, appellants obviously sensed at the appellate argument that they should have designated the video, bringing a motion to augment the record with the video one day after the oral argument. This was denied as untimely. (Regents of University of California v. Sheily, 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 826 n. 1 (2004).)
Comments