A United States District Judge has affirmed a Magistrate Judge's imposition of sanctions for conduct in the course of adjusting and litigating Sandy claims. The Magistrate Judge's decision was commented on here. "Federal Court in New York Investigates Sandy Adjusting," November 12, 2014.
The District Judge laid out the entire situation concisely at the beginning of a longer opinion. The Judge's opening is well worth reading in full:
Pending before the Court is defendant's appeal of an order issued by Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown on November 7, 2014, In re Hurricane Sandy Cases, ___ F.R.D. ___, 2014 WL 5801540 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2014)(the “November 7 Order”), addressing the disclosure of draft engineering reports on insured properties allegedly affected by Hurricane Sandy, and imposing evidentiary sanctions on defendant Wright and monetary sanctions on its counsel for failing to obey discovery orders and causing undue delay to these proceedings. The sanctions arose from (1) a failure by defendant and its counsel to disclose an initial written report (dated December 9, 2012) by George Hernemar, an engineer from U.S. Forensic (“USF”), who had inspected the home at issue and concluded that it had been damaged beyond repair by Hurricane Sandy, and (2) the conduct by defendant's counsel at a subsequent evidentiary hearing before Magistrate Judge Brown to determine how the undisclosed initial report was modified into a second subsequent report, dated January 7, 2013 (disclosed to plaintiffs), which eliminated certain observations by the engineer and reached the exact opposite conclusions—namely, that the defects in the home had not been caused by the storm, but rather were due to long-term deterioration. In particular, following the evidentiary hearing, Magistrate Judge Brown found, inter alia, the following: (1) defendant and its counsel violated their obligations to comply with this Court's discovery orders by failing to produce the initial engineering report; (2) the process, in this particular case, that led to the alterations of Hernemar's observations in the initial report and the reversal of the report's conclusions was “flawed,” “unprincipled,” “reprehensible,” and “highly improper”; (3) the failure to disclose the initial report resulted, in this case, in “unreasonably prolonging this litigation, imposing unnecessary costs upon plaintiffs and further contributing to the unwarranted delays in resolving this claim”; and (4) “given the discovery failures by defendant's counsel, the unreasonable response by defendant to the allegations, and counsel's shocking attempt to curtail inquiry during the hearing, it is reasonable to charge the costs associated with the hearing to defendant's counsel.” (November 7 Order, at 13, 15–25.)
For the reasons set forth in detail below, the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Brown's November 7 Order in its entirety. More specifically, there is no basis for this Court to conclude that Magistrate Judge Brown's findings or his sanctions were clearly erroneous or contrary to law, as would be required for a reversal. Having carefully reviewed the record, it is absolutely clear to this Court that the process that led to the modification of the initial engineering report (including the removal of observations that were inconsistent with the new conclusions) was flawed, and the concealment of that initial report and the process that led to the new report (including conduct at the evidentiary hearing) has prejudiced plaintiffs in terms of delay and costs in this litigation, such that the sanctions were warranted.
In re Hurricane Sandy Cases (Raimey v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Co.), ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2014 WL 7399179, *1 (E.D.N.Y. December 31, 2014)(Bianco, United States District Judge). [Emphasis added.]
Please Read The Disclaimer. Copyright 2015 by Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. No claim to Original U.S. Government Works.