Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions - Read All About It

Episode 12: Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions – Read All About It

In this episode of The Velvet Hammer™, Karen and Mo dive into the wild world of sanctions. What they are, why they matter, and how defense firms push the limits. Karen starts with her first sanctions victory in the 90s, then they walk through three recent cases. 

They also break down how power structures inside law firms impact who takes the fall and why some judges are finally doing something about it.

If you’ve ever wondered how discovery violations actually play out, or what it looks like when a judge says enough, this episode lays it all out.

Subscribe to The Velvet Hammer™ for more behind-the-scenes insight from the plaintiff side.

Stay Connected with The Velvet Hammer™

📺 Watch full episodes on YouTube
📲 Follow us on Instagram & Facebook → @TheVelvetHammerPodcast
✉️ Got a question or topic request? Email us! → thevelvethammerpodcast@stritmatter.com

🔥 New episodes drop Wednesdays – don’t miss out

Transcript

0:06

Okay, so sanctions, sanctions, read all about it, hot off the press, three sanctions orders. Let me talk about sanctions. Okay, talk about sanctions. I want to tell you about my first sanction order. Yeah. It was in the very mid, mid, I guess, 90s. I worked with, I worked, was I working with Pat? I was working with Pat LaPley and I had the small cases going to trial and because I didn't, I hadn't done small cases. I, the defense firm where I worked before, before I became a plaintiff lawyer, just did big cases. So I kind of went in reverse. When I started working with Pat LaPley, we're going to put on a seminar called how to hammer all state because they're, they're horrible at the time. So I had to have a small case, which I didn't have one because I was going to give a speech. So I got a small case because one of my clients in an employment discrimination case was rear-ended and, and else it said, you can't, you can't be injured. You've already had an injury and there's no dent to your bumper. So I, I went to trial on that and they denied liability up until the time they got to trial and they said, we admit liability. So I asked for sanctions because the whole time I had proof, you know, that the other person was at fault for hitting her. And they, they said, no, and it was a modest verdict, but it was good enough. So the judge didn't know he wasn't going to give me sanctions. So I appealed because it was a district court. You could file a case, a small case in district court. I appealed it at the Supreme Court. Oh, sorry. Superior court reversed that judge and, and granted me sanctions and against all state for doing that. And with that money, I bought the picture that is in my office of the warrior woman over my desk. I still have it. So you took, well, what did they do that was bad? Like, why would you, I, I, part of what I don't understand about sanctions is, is that like, what does it take to get a judge to convince a judge to say, you know what, it's time to like they used to give sanctions more often back in the day. Okay. You violate a rule, you're supposed to follow the rules. Okay. And then it's kind of gotten really pretty loosey goosey. What do you mean the loosey goosey? Oh, like for example, tried a case, uh, gosh, two and a half years ago now where three weeks before trial, the defendants identified three experts who they had never identified before. And the court didn't feel that they could strike those experts because of some case law called Burnett. Um, and so he allowed them to have those late experts. Um, so that was that, that's an example of, yeah, I didn't get sanctions. And what's really interesting is one of the cases that we're going to talk about today, not only didn't they, did they get sanctions? They got a ton of sanctions. Well, okay. So when you talk about case law, you're talking about like, judges don't want to take away a person's right to put on evidence that's important to them. Right. And then, so, but I'm a defense lawyer, imagine, and I go like, okay, Kohler is trying the case and I'm, and I know what her case is and I know what her experts are going to say. She's been telling me about her whole case because she's been following the rules. And at the last minute, I'm going to be like, as a lawyer, oh, by the way, I've got a new expert, three of them, three of them. And then like, you go, you go bollocks, like, that's not fair. You can't do that to me. And then I go judge, I judge, um, I might just indicate it to me that I'll be very loud. You are allowed. Okay. Okay. Bringing down a few, few octaves. And then I get all excited and I go, that's not fair. And then you get all excited and go, that's not fair. You put out these experts and I say, but judge, this evidence is so important for the jury to hear. You can't take them away. I mean, that's unfair. How do you get around that? So in that case, they'd actually had asked for a continuance of the whole trial. So they'd already gotten a continuance to do more discovery. This is all about sanctions that involve discovery. So they've been allowed to do more discovery. And all they did was take my client's mother's death and we took my client's death. So they take it, take it, take it again. They didn't, they didn't take any other, other things. They, they, they, and then they just disclose these expert opinions. So there's a rule called CR 26, which says it, at least in our state that I needed to answer your questions. And you need to answer my questions about what's the case about? What are you claiming? Who's going to testify? And then that allows us to be kind of someone on an even playing field supposedly. And then we can do our due diligence and then be ready. So that by the time we go to trial, we're prepared basically. But when, when person hides the ball all the time and it's almost always a defense, I can tell you, I have, I have been sanctioned before and never for discovery violation. Okay. But losing that trial date, how hard is it right now to get a new trial date? Like, you know, I mean, getting into a trial, first of all, It was like a six month continuance, but sometimes it's years. That's crazy. And do, okay. Do a lot of judges let this happen? They got their continuance and then they still didn't disclose their experts for, for until three weeks before the trial. What's the purpose of the rule then if you're going to let people like behave this way? I know that's what we're going to talk about. Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Read all about it. Okay. So let's talk about judges that stepped up and did something. Okay. First of all, please step up if you're a judge and, and make, I'm going to just say it, make the defendants follow the rules, the plaintiffs. Okay. So here's how it goes. I don't even know if we have some of our discovery, but they'll say, we'll say stuff like, you know, tell us your name, your address. You're supposed to identify yourself. Who are our witnesses? In the case we have right now with Amazon, it's like, tell us your insurance. And they asked us questions like, well, tell us all your employment information listed all down that way. They can go subpoena all those people. Tell us all your medical providers. We list it down. Tell us your education or, you know, the disease we listed all out. In fact, I have a practice where I really try not to object at all, because I do want to give them everything because that's fair. The objections we get from the defense lawyers are like, they're like this. They're the whole answer is the objection normally. So I'm like, give me, give us your insurance policy, which you're supposed to give according to the rules. They're like objection. I don't even know what the objection is. And scope, not this, not that. Not designed to lead to whatever. And then by the way, just look at the other defendants answer to theirs. And that's what our answer is, is what their answer is. And I mean, but their objections, I fall asleep when I start to read them because they're just, it's just, I don't know what it is, but like they're repetitive. It seems like they cut and paste the same objections over and over again, but judges let them get away with it. And, and that's a problem in, unfortunately, in my experience, the majority of the judges in the superior courts allow these defendants to get, get away with it. And what you do is you're teaching behavior, like you're affirming their behavior. And so when they're affirmed that simple stuff, they do what they did to you. They kick, they forced your case out a year and, and delay the case. And right now, King County Superior Court, Karen, there's so many cases ready to go to trial and they're complaining about it. There's complaints on everyone's side. One thing the judges do could get discovery moving. Those would get the cases resolved. I mean, you know, a yes, the judge, it's ultimately the judge's issues, but the appellate courts haven't been really great. You mean the appellate courts? They haven't. Yeah. So that, so the judges, the judges don't want to be reversed. I see. So if they, if they punish them, they're worried about getting reversed. Yeah. Okay. First of all, judge has no scanning. So nothing's going to happen to the judge, but his reputational, I guess, is like a mediator who keeps track of, Oh, I got this case settled, but these ones didn't, or I don't know. I don't know what it is. I guess it's ego and not the best interest involved in the case, because if I'm looking at the case and I'm looking at someone that withheld discovery and didn't give it until the eve of trial, I want to, I want to do something about it. The court of appeals made that a little bit difficult, but there's at least one order here where the judge did everything he could in drafting his findings to show the court of appeals why he should be upheld. Yeah, this was, I think, well, which one are we going to talk about? Well, we can talk about, well, let's, let's talk about the first one, which is not an, is it the Amazon case? Yeah. Amazon, our Amazon case. Okay. We can talk about that. Okay. So how many motions for sanctions have we brought on that? I mean, we brought one motion for sanctions and contempt. We got the sanctions and then we've recently filed a second motion for sanctions, but we have brought, I think three or three motions to compel in the court. And we've had 25 or 30 discovery conferences. And you were super, super smart in suggesting, Hey, why don't you propose to record the conferences on zoom? And then, and then I proposed that and they were like, no, you don't want to record it. And I moved the judge to say, judge, you order recording these things because it'll help resolve the discovery problems. And the judge is like, and they came in on judge, we're good. We're going to trust us and we're going to be good. And, and then they weren't. So then when we get, went back and got the sanctions order, uh, and they were trying to do a complaining a little bit about what we were saying in the conferences, I was like, they can't complain. That's why I offered to record it. And they didn't, it really helped. Yeah. I mean, why wouldn't you record those discovery conferences? Because they don't want to judge. We've been asking, we've been asking, we've been saying, so you have to have the discovery conference anytime that there's a dispute before you bring a motion. And we've been asking the defense to stipulate that they should all be recorded. And they, none of them will agree to it. Why do you think they don't want to tell them why what's the, they don't want anybody to know how obstructionist they are. That's right. Instructions. Um, so we got an order here for fees. Okay. Okay. For, uh, getting discovery in the middle of Christmas and discovery that was relevant for a 30 B six deposition. It was crazy. They duplicated 7,000 pages of discovery on this. And I had to spend Christmas reviewing. I was sober, angry. And, um, and so we filed a motion that motion for sanctions and contempt. And all I did was go up to judge and I was just like, I am frustrated. I spent my Christmas reading discovery to prepare for this deposition. And either they had all this stuff in their pocket and disclosed it to the last second or they intentionally withheld. And the reason I know that is, is that as soon as I filed the motion, they dumped the 7,000 pages of discovery, which they had it, you know? And so the judge was not having it. Like they dumped it the next day we filed the motion that they were withholding documents. And like, it was the next day, it was either the next day or the day after the next day, but it was like that same week within a day, they just dumped it. I mean, this is, this is, uh, you know, um, it's, it's the judge basically said he had ordered either. Here's what the judge said. Amazon did not have a satisfactory explanation about why the thousands of pages of documents that were produced December 20th, 24, after plaintiff filed their second motion to compel and for contempt and sack sanctions could not have been provided to plaintiff sooner, especially given the court's order required Amazon to comply within 30 days of the October 23rd order. That's basically saying what, what does that mean? Did not have satisfactory. What does that mean? I forgot to mention that. So we filed a motion, they dumped the documents. They then call us, remember that? Well, or they never call us, they email everything. And they want us to drop the motion because they gave us all the documents. And we're like, we're not dropping the motion or for sanctions. You gave us a document that we had to take all the time to draft this motion. No, we're not going to do it. And didn't they just argue that we were wasting the court's time basically by making you even go down to court because they'd already given documents. Yes. That's one of the arguments that was like, well, we've already given it to them. Well, I know we had already. Well, I guess what's great about this judge is that this judge, Honorable Grant Blinn. Thank you, Judge Blinn. Judge Blinn is fantastic, thoughtful, really smart. And you know what I love about his courtroom? Pierce County. Pierce County. What I love about his courtroom, when I go in there, he's always smiling. And so first thing I always say to him is, good morning, happy Friday, because Fridays are his hearings and you can see him light up. But very thoughtful judge, very fair judge. And so this is an example of somebody who steps up and does what's right and holds her feet to the fire. Well, let me just say one more thing about this judge. There have been so many discovery disputes in this case. Yeah. So much withheld, so many conferences. When Moe has gone down there before on other motions, like the one that I'll never forget is the judge said, OK, I'm going to handle this at the end of the calendar, heard all the other motions and then spent two hours. Yeah, it was about two hours, hour to two hours going through every discovery response and saying, turn it over, turn it over. And I just was like lighting up inside. I mean, what judge will do that? So what most judges do is they'll say, well, we want a special discovery judge. No. And you know what? It's so much better if you don't have to do that because then the judge knows and the judge, the judge is more likely to do what happened here. And they're more scared of the judge than they are with the retired judge. Frankly. Yeah. All right. So now I want to talk about and I want you to talk about this other case, which is Rose versus Pharmacia. And I think this is Colleen's case. Who's I believe it is. I don't know. But this is the case of of of a law firm. Well, let's just talk about one little thing here. So there is a commonality to the three different cases and three different sanction orders that we're talking about today. OK, what is the commonality? What do you think? They're all defense. What kind of defense? What do you mean? It's all the same law firm. I don't know. No, no, no. I don't think. No, one of them is not. One of them is is causing O'Connor and the other two are the same law. Oh, well, OK, well, yeah, I think I got them mixed up. Yeah, I know. They're all just might. You know what the tough part of of of practicing law is? No. Is that these law firms like the names of Bob, Sally, you know, like it's like so many of them. And I'm not sure. Yeah. You know, this is why I always say strip matter. Like, it's hard for me to go. Kessler, Kohler, more like, you know, it's not trying to be disrespectful, but it's like, you know, like one of them is called Fabros. And I keep calling them Mentos, like the Freshmaker, because because like it's hard. I know it's the initial of all of their names. OK, so two of them. Yes. It was much longer when I started. We had five names when I started. There's always been there's always been a big, big deal about like who gets their name on the firm. Well, who like who what we say when we answer the phone, like, you know, five names, people have hung up before you stop talking. The reason is because some of the lawyers, I think they insist that their name is on there. This is a whole thing. When did you really make him? This was a whole deal. I didn't know. Like, I had no idea what I thought that I had to do that. Like, you know, it wasn't I wasn't the receptionist. I just had to cover every once in a while. But I mean, I'd be like, Mike, you did. There were instructions. I'd be like, I'm sorry. I'm supposed to say I'm sorry. It was so ridiculous. So true. So ridiculous. Why is this is insanity? OK. All right. Back to digressed. We digressed. I'm like tearing up laughing. But OK. OK. Two of the orders have to do with the same law firm. One is ours. And then this is the big meat. I'll save that one for the end. OK. All right. Do the one about ours. Who's the attorney? The attorneys. Well, the attorneys were Wilson and Alcer. He did not name the attorneys. And the judge was very careful and said the attorneys were very ethical in the case. Which case? Our case? Our case. But subsequently, now a new firm has jumped on to save the day. And it's Cora Cronin. Here we come to save the day. I mean, that's what they're doing. It's going to be so much better that we're on this case. You know, we've got this. You know, things will get way better now. We will. You know, we're here. We'll take charge. And, you know, we're the best. Number one. And so they've now taken over the case. And the discovery issues have just gotten worse. Who is the lead attorney? I don't know. What is his name? Foghorn Lakehorn. I'm giving it. I'm giving you a clue. Foghorn Lakehorn. Oh, Steve Fox. That's right. Sorry. I'm sorry. I don't remember the names. But yeah, that's that's the lead. But he's very quiet. I don't. He doesn't say much. He doesn't say much. I don't see any correspondence. He's got a lot. He's got, I think, four or five attorneys under him. Oh, my gosh. Let me just say we were doing started doing depositions of lay witnesses, not medical, no experts that the lay witnesses last month. And the first three, the first three witnesses were covered by three attorneys. But I was thinking, maybe I'm just not paying attention to this. I don't know who they are. In fact, they have never appeared in the case. They weren't on our email distributions. They're just like, there's so many attorneys. That was an addition to like the other three. So there's at least six attorneys on it. From that firm, not counting the other attorneys. And those are the only ones we know about. We don't know the under ones. So there's probably even more attorneys. Oh, for sure. Oh, my goodness. Who knows how many attorneys like an army of attorneys? One of them's name is Boom Boom, which I actually approve of that. Wait, Boom Boom? Boom Boom. Boom? Boom Boom. Boom Boom. I approve of that. Like, OK, OK, that's fair, because some people call me Momo. I mean, like, hey, Momo. But I had never seen Boom Boom. I just saw his name. And it said Boom Boom. And I was like, well, who's that? He was a silent witness to these other people. Oh, that's super interesting. Yeah. Wait, who's Lucio with? Lucio's with Coral Cronin. He's the one who's who has been tasked with running a lot of the discussions. So let's just talk here. Like, you know, let's get personal. Mo is like, Lucio should be a plaintiff lawyer. And now initially I thought, well, maybe you should be. And now, absolutely not. OK, I push back, Karen. You have been ruined. He's been ruined. He's been Coral Croninized. And he is done. No, he is being taken advantage of. No, no, no, no, no. Karen, Karen. He is willing to do that stuff for the evil, evil, evil ones. Karen, my instincts tell me that this is a good kid. Mo loves everybody. No, I don't love everybody. No, no, no, no. I don't love everybody. That's incorrect. I get angry at people. Only after they've hurt you. Or hurt people like Karen. So he hasn't had he hasn't had an opportunity to completely fail in front of you. I'm telling you that he's been Coral Croninized. And once you're Coral Croninized, like, sorry. I think every soul is worthy of salvation. And I think so is Lucio's soul. And that one day he shall be saved. All right. Well, in addition to our case where they got sanctioned. Yes. They got super sanctioned again. Well, yes. Well, the firm did not get sanctioned in our case. A client did. Yes. But in the case that you're talking about. Pull it up. I'll pull it up. Okay, great. Okay. Let me see it. All right. You gotta look at it. This is Judge Michael Ryan. Michael Ryan in the case of Rose versus Farm, Farm, Farmachia. Date of order, March 17, 2025. Boy, that's like a week. This order is 28 pages long. Okay. That's a lot of writing. The judge felt so strongly about this that they did a totally a 28 page order. If this was a book of poems, it would be a chapbook. What we call the chapbook, Mike. This, this. So the judge had already ordered sanctions. Yes. Of a million dollars. Wait, I don't think he ordered a million dollars. Oh, wait. This is not the million. That's not the million. Never mind. Kohler. You gotta get the order. That was totally wrong. I totally retract everything I just said about the how much. That was not the right one. Check. Check with me, please. A lot. But the order had already been entered. This was on the motion for reconsideration. So in other words. He had imposed them. They had already been imposed. There had been a trial. They imposed. He imposed this motion. These sanctions. And they moved for reconsideration. And he thought to himself, I'm going to tell you what I think the judge thought. They want to appeal this. And because the court of appeals hasn't been that strong. So I'm going to make a bulletproof order. So the court of appeal knows exactly how I used my judicial office. To the letter of the law appropriately and sanctioning this firm. Yes. And he sanctioned the firm, by the way. That was a different. It's a big deal. And we'll talk about that. But let's. Why don't you give the overview of what happened in this? I mean, what happened is what you described happened in that case. Which bringing in an expert late in the game. And causing utter havoc in a complicated trial that has been litigated for years. And the attorney, the plaintiff's attorney in the case was just living. And and the judge realized that the chaos that their their actions produced. And what was happening is, is that it appears. It appears that that the defense did this at the behest of their client. That the client said, go ahead, wreak havoc. And we'll take care of it. And what the judge is saying. If you do that, sure, you're following your client's advice. But you as the attorney are now on the hook as well. Including the attorneys who weren't actively involved in the decisions. But stood by and let it happen. That's basically the nature of the order. And so it happened. So what happened is, is that he sanctioned. Make sure I get this right. Mr. Fogg, Ms. Harris, Ms. Branscombe and Mr. Upshaw. Shall make a payment to the King County Bar Foundation in the amount of $2,500. A piece. A piece. And then Mr. Maldonado, Ms. Blackwell, Ms. Matten and Mr. Bonney. Are hereby formally reprimanded. And you know, this is where I think. I don't know the other, the reprimanded lawyers. I know, I know Lucio. This is where I think. This is, this is. I think that. Can I be candid? As long as it's not defamatory. No, I think it's, it's a little bit cowardly for a firm to allow. Young lawyers to get reprimanded. Because they stood by and did not actively involved in the decision. The, the lead lawyers, the ones at the top of the food chain, the power brokers. Made the decision. I guarantee you these lawyers didn't have any involvement in those decisions. I guarantee you they were not the ones in those rooms making those decisions. And for them to allow this to happen. I would have walked in if I was one of the main lawyers. I would walk to the judge, say, judge, sanction me, reprimand me. Not them. They didn't do anything. The power structure of my firm is, is that although they are in there getting paid by my firm. I am the one who decides. The buck stops with me. And I would have put my reputation and career on the line. Before throwing young lawyers under the bus. Especially a lawyer of color. Who is trying to find his footing in the legal community. I just think that that's feckless, honestly. And it's cowardly. That drives me nuts about, about, about the order. And, and I'm really upset about it. Because it impacts their careers. You know, Faulk and those guys, they got a ton of money. Those are lawyers of privilege. I don't have to worry about it.$2,500 to the King County Bar Foundation. So I'm, I'm really upset about that. I agree with you, but I'm also, I'm also not going to let those other lawyers off the hook. Why not push back? I'll tell you why. It's just like, you have a choice. Ultimately you have a choice. They made the choice to follow. They made a choice. This is how, this is how it typically plays out. Yeah. Person goes to law school for several reasons. One of the reasons is because they want to make the world a better place. They, they think it's an honorable profession. And they want to have a positive impact in the world, their communities. That's one of them. And they, especially, especially certain lawyers, not, not always privileged lawyers. But many people want to, want to come in and make a difference. And then they get to the end of their legal law school career and they have a choice. They can take the job with the evil defense attorneys. And I mean, evil ones, not really. There's, I mean, are there good ones? Yeah. My best friend's a defense attorney. The ones that have systems like this in place. Or they can go to a plaintiff firm. They can go to a family law firm. They can go to a criminal law firm. They can go to a probate firm. They can go to a contract firm. They chose to go into a firm like this. And then they chose to work on a case and cases where the sole objective is to crush the little guy who's trying to get justice against the big guy. So fundamentally as a minority attorney, you are already conflicted because you know that that's not what you set out to do. But you have taken that deal because it's a guaranteed paycheck or status. It's one or the other. You get the status, you get the paycheck guaranteed from the beginning. So it's a choice. They made the choice. They're there. The judge wanted to give the sanction order for their particular reason. They were there and they just allowed it to happen. All right. They were complicit. I agree in many respects with what you're saying, Karen. Karen, I love you. But like help me understand this because I'm totally like missing the point. How do you stand up in that room? What do you say? What do you say? You got to pay bills. You got maybe a family to support. You're a young guy. What do you say? Tell me. Walk us through how you would do it as a union lawyer. You say, I don't want to be part of this. And you leave. I mean, I'll be honest with you. That's what I would have done. I would have walked. I would have not. I would have not like done anything like this. I'm like, I'm done. I'm out. You say, I'm not going to sign this. Yeah. You say you sign this. Yeah. Yeah. Remember how I told you about the whole thing where I had to go in front of that judge and they sent me up? Yeah. The judge was already mad and I just had to take the fall. Yeah. Well, okay. I didn't know it the first time. And maybe this was the first time for some of them. They'll never forget this. Are they, are they still there? Yeah. They're still there. They're still working. Okay. Why? I would have a different reaction maybe if they had left. Then I'd say, you know what? Mo, I totally agree with you. Yeah. But you know what? You're going to justify this in your mind. Bad judge. Judge was way off. I think that there wasn't their excuse of this wasn't that big of a deal. It wasn't that bad. That reason was brought up. Yes. Minimized it. Rationalized it. Mike, what are your thoughts? Oh, I think that you both have a good point about what young lawyers. I mean, I feel like young lawyers, when the power brokers that you mentioned make the decision as to what they want done in the case, that the young lawyers are going to fall in line and Karen's right. If you, if you're a foot soldier for a firm and you do this kind of stuff, you're complicit. And you, I mean, you can argue that they're not as important and they don't have the power to make those decisions, but they could still leave. They could still choose to go to a better firm. They could still choose to just work on their own. And just because that might be a tougher road, doesn't mean you don't have to take it. If there were no bad lawyers, lawyers wouldn't have the reputation that everybody gives them. It's true. Or if there were a lot less than it would be easy to know who the bad ones were. There's a case that I just, I always can envision this. And it happens, it happens all the time when you see the young lawyers. There's almost a fervor of like hero worship of their partner. Like I'm on this holy mission and the mission is because I was a defense lawyer is this plaintiff is trying to take advantage of this company. And we can't allow that to happen. And there's this almost a fervor. I saw it in this, another trial where there's a brand new attorney and then the park senior partner, and she really didn't know anything. She was really pretty. She was so new. And I was like, Hey, at least you're trying to mentor her. But even as the case was disintegrating around them, there was just this aura. They never, she was never able to adjust of being able to read the courtroom because she was so focused and biased in terms of pleasing her partner. I watched it. She couldn't change herself. She wasn't, she couldn't see that the jury was angry at them and she would just come out and keep doing her really nastiness. Yeah. Yeah. To a nasty, I'm not talking about, like I said, I like a lot of defense lawyers. There's some that are super nasty. This guy was, is one of the nastiest ever nasty. And so that's what she's modeling. I think, and I can always remember my favorite part is when the jury verdict came in and just watching her face, his face, he knew how to keep it, but her face just went. Because even then at the end of it, she was still thinking that they were going to win because they were, she was on the right side. So I hear you and I appreciate that. We had to go to the last one. Okay. The last one, which is a million dollars and a million dollars. It's the, it's the greatest sanction of all time. It makes sanctions crazy. This is such the only other sanction order I've seen. So there's been other sanction orders that have, that have been bigger than this. And this firm was involved with one of them, but it didn't look like that. So what happened in the firm has twice been involved in cases. Both of them are public cases where the defendant hid evidence. Hit it like in the bear products piece, the paint case that they hid the fact it was, it was a class action and it was about the fact that people, you know, we live in the Pacific Northwest, that there was, their, their sighting and stuff was failing because of this. The, it was the stain. Yeah. The stain that would go on decks and on the sides of houses, it, it would mold. Yeah. And then turns out they had withheld the scientists tests that show that there was already mold in it by the time. So the judge defaulted there. What? Yes. So by the, for that discovery violation defaults them. So, you know, millions and millions and millions of dollars are paid out because they can't, they don't have a defense anymore. That was the only discovery sanction happened again in Madonna. That it was a seatbelt. It was now basically a $2 part and they had hid stuff again in Madonna. This is a high-end case and the judge defaulted them too. So, but this is different. This is a sanctions order. There wasn't a default in the world. And the reason that there's not a default is because it didn't happen. It, part of it happened a day or so before trial and it didn't affect actually the trial outcome. And then another part of it happened after the trial. And then another part happened after, after the court ordered on the trial. And it was disclosure of insurance policy limits. Yeah. They disclosed a $5 million policy early. Then three years. Not early. No, no, no. The first disclosure was a $5 million policy. Then nearly three years after the plaintiff's discovery request on the Friday before trial. Yeah. Defendants disclosed that there was also 25 million travelers excess policy that applied to the court. Yeah. The judge, the case went to verdict and the jury awarded $11 million. But the judge said like, this affected so much of the trial. The plaintiffs were only trying to, they knew that there was only $5 million of coverage. So even if they had gotten a bigger verdict, they were only going to get $5 million. They made policy limits demands, meaning they would have settled that case for $5 million. It just changed a lot of what they were going to do. And then after the judge entered the order, sanctioning them, they found that third $25 million or yeah, the third policy. Oh yeah. Two, there was a second $25 million policy. And the thing is, is that talk to me about certified discovery responses, because the judge talks about the attorney certified the discovery responses. What does that mean? Wait, was it math? Does he show it in there? The court finds that the Kazim O'Connor attorney certified the discovery response without performing a reasonable inquiry into whether the discovery response was complete. Yeah. So that was, and who was the guy? It doesn't say who it was just as attorneys. Oh yeah. Doesn't mean. So we have noticed that this has become a big thing. Yeah. For defense attorneys, we've been getting discovery requests, but they're not signed by the company. The attorneys are signing them. But here, when you ask about insurance, we asked the attorney to certify that there was no more insurance. And that attorney, the attorney in this case did the same thing. So you have to answer, this is how much insurance this is. And then I certify because there's been other cases. It happens constantly. Where they're not telling us all the insurance. So now they're supposed to certify it. Attorney certifies it. That insurance company doesn't sign the discovery. That's why the insurance company is not sanctioned. Well, it's saying then that's right. And it says the court, but the sanction is interesting. The court therefore imposes $1 million sanction.$1 million sanction. Kazan O'Connor gets to be paid to whom? The American National Red Cross. And why the American National Red Cross, Karen? Why? I don't know. Well, it's a pharmaceutical company. Yeah. Is it like, I mean, it's not a plaintiff. I don't know if they represent the American National Red Cross. No, they don't. So this is like a charity contribution, basically. You can, yeah, sanctions don't have to. Yeah, they can go to court funds or whatever. But look at, read how it has to get paid. They have 30 days to make arrangements for this payment. The payment may be made in a lump sum or in four quarterly payments. But in either case, the entire amount shall be paid within one year of the entry of this order. If Kazan O'Connor chooses to make quarterly payments rather than a lump sum in 30 days, then whatever amount is not paid on or within 30 days of the entry date of this order shall accrue interest at 10% per annual. Kazan O'Connor shall file a report with this court sending forth a full details of payment arrangements, including the date and amount of each quarterly payment with interest. If applicable, after each payment, the attorney shall file with this court proof of payment from the Red Cross. The court is aware, this one, that attorneys Kazan O'Connor contend because the plaintiff's motion asked only for sanction against defendants, it did not receive notice that sanctions might be imposed upon them or have an opportunity to be heard. That's due process. Due process says you can't take something away unless you give people process due to do. Nevertheless, the court gave its ruling from the bench on January 17th, 2025, imposing sanctions on attorney. Kazan O'Connor was provided with notice of the February 28th, 2025 hearing on plaintiff's proposed order. Thus, Kazan O'Connor has an adequate opportunity to file a memo and also to present argument to the court before this order was entered. Kazan O'Connor's due process concerns have been satisfied. Honorable Shelley K. Moss. Can we just all clap for Judge Moss? Shelley K. Moss. Bravo, bravo. I mean, this is, this is just so... Wait, is this it? Yeah, that's it. You have it in your hand? Yeah, so it was Robert D. Lee who signed, who signed the interrogatories. Oh, that's the lawyer that signed. Oh, Kazan O'Connor. And, and William Walsh. So both of them. And then there's one more thing I want to say. I just, I just, I'm so speechless about it. This is, this is what, this is what, why they sanctioned them. I mean, the legal basis. The court finds that the, I think it's Kazan, but who's, who's counting? Kazan O'Connor attorneys certified the discovery response pursuant to CR 26G without performing a reasonable inquiry into whether discovery response was complete. This is a violation. And then it says here that the withholding of the insurance is particularly egregious. I love that. It's particularly egregious because this information is only controlled by an insurance company. The plaintiff has no other way of getting it other than through discovery requests. And if the court does not require that there be a reasonable inquiry into what policies there may be in place to satisfy a judgment, then, then what is the incentive to produce those policies? So. Can we just talk a little bit about what that means? Like, break it down. Hey, Karen, do you have car insurance? Yes. Do you have a homeowner's policy? Yes. Do you have any other insurance policies? Okay. Can you do me a favor and send me a copy of your, the name of your insurance broker and company? I'll get them and I need to look at them. Yeah. That's what reasonable inquiry means. Yeah. I mean, basically what the judge is saying is, is that you didn't have the conversation, a reasonable conversation about, hey, do you have insurance? Do you have any other policies? The judge said, this is an issue where defense counsel did not look for a policy, which they would easily have found. And it was not disclosed until just before trial. Even more coverage was not disclosed until after trial. That cannot be tolerated. Because, okay. Is it possible that this is what happened? Adam, you're, you're, you're a defense lawyer. I gotta go. You gotta go. Pretty soon. Just finish. Denny's waiting for me. Denny's waiting for you. But finish. Denny, just wait. Wait, one minute. One minute, Denny. We're almost done. Okay. You don't tell them about the excess policy because you want to settle the case for, for less than the first policy disclosed. So the 5 million, you go, oh, we only got 5 million. We only got 5 million. And then you go like, you get the settlement for 5, and then you go to your client and go, good thing you didn't tell me about the 25. Is that what you did? They should have settled it for 5 million. They would have saved 6 million on the judgment. And then a million dollars in sanctions. To the American Red Cross. To the American Red Cross. And a terrible order that implicates them. Yes. Okay. All right. So sanctions, sanctions. We read all about it. Hot off the press. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. All right. That was a good one. We did good.