Judge Strikes Legal-Mal Defenses Over 'Egregious' Discovery Abuse
In a blistering order in a contentious legal malpractice suit, a DeKalb County judge said "egregious" discovery abuses justified striking the defenses and entering a default judgment against attorney James Potts II.
October 25, 2017 at 02:52 PM
6 minute read
Judge J.P. Boulee, DeKalb County Superior Court (Photo: John Disney / ALM)
In a blistering order, the DeKalb County judge overseeing a legal malpractice case has struck the defenses and entered a default judgment against attorney James Potts II, leaving only the issue of damages to be decided by a jury.
Potts' “behavior in this case is the most egregious the court has ever seen,” wrote Superior Court Judge J.P. Boulee, and thus “the most extreme sanction is warranted.”
Potts' attorney called the underlying suit groundless and said he would seek an immediate appeal of Boulee's ruling.
Potts was sued last year by William Clowdis Jr., who according to court filings and arguments is both a former employee and client.
Clowdis, a former medical doctor in Virginia, had his license suspended and was ordered into a monitoring program based on what he claims were unfounded allegations of substance abuse. He also holds a law degree, although he is not licensed to practice in any state.
According to his complaint, Clowdis began working with Potts in 2012, providing legal and medical advice on civil cases. He was paid a “modest” salary, and Potts also agreed to help him with his case before the Virginia Medical Board.
Clowdis would later accuse Potts of deliberately ruining his relationship with the medical board, resulting in his license being “resuspended,” and then failing to do anything to help his case.
He said Potts settled cases the two had worked on together for more than $10 million but refused to share the proceeds.
Last year, Clowdis sued Potts and his practice, claiming legal malpractice, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, libel and other counts.
Potts successfully moved to have several of the counts dismissed and filed his own counterclaims and motion for summary judgment.
The suit has been marked by discovery disputes and allegations of deceptive behavior by both parties.
During a nearly daylong hearing in August on a stack of outstanding motions, Clowdis' attorneys, Louis Levenson and George Lott of Levenson & Associates, asked Boulee to strike Potts' pleadings as a sanction for a “continuing pattern” of discovery abuse and failure to provide requested documents.
Potts' lawyer, Eugene Butt of Potts' firm, countered that Clowdis' complaint was both untimely and contained clearly false allegations.
On Monday, Boulee's ruling came down on Clowdis' side with a bang.
“Normally,” Boulee wrote, “only a total failure to serve answers or objections would subject a party to immediate sanctions, like a dismissal, without the necessity of the court first entering an order requiring offending party to respond.”
But an “important exception” allows such a dismissal “when a party intentionally makes false responses to a document production request, particularly false responses concerning a pivotal issue in the litigation,” he wrote.
In this case, Boulee wrote, Potts “willfully, falsely, and knowingly den[ied] the existence of requested discoverable documents.”
The judge highlighted Potts' belated initial response to a query under the title of “Defendants' Supplemental Responses and Objections.”
The title “was designed to trick the court or trick opposing counsel into thinking the responses were timely,” Boulee said. “At the very least, it is game playing that should not be tolerated in Georgia.”
Among the documents requested were any related to another, settled lawsuit between Potts and another lawyer in litigation “very similar to the instant case.”
The defense had replied that the documents were under seal and not available but, when Clowdis' counsel filed a motion to unseal, the judge in that case said they were not sealed.
The defendants “willfully misrepresented that the documents were under seal as an explanation for not producing the discoverable documents,” Boulee wrote.
In another example, Boulee said the defense repeatedly claimed not to possess hundreds of requested emails.
Boulee said he was “extremely troubled” that the defense “repeatedly misrepresented to [Clowdis] the existence of these documents for over a year.”
“Each and every one of the defendants' representations was false and misleading” regarding the documents, the judge wrote. “Defendants' actions could not have been the result of a mistake. As such, the court will treat the false representations as a complete failure to respond.”
Pursuant to the judgment, Clowdis is “entitled to verdict and judgment by default as if every item and paragraph of his complaint were supported by proper evidence.” A jury will determine any appropriate damages, Boulee said.
Butt, representing Potts, told the Daily Report by email, “There is no legal malpractice.”
Butt cited testimony on Potts' behalf by Dentons partner Randy Evans, who co-wrote a long-running column for the Daily Report on legal ethics matters before he was nominated recently by President Donald Trump to be ambassador to Luxembourg.
“As Randy Evans, our expert and the leading authority in this field in Georgia testified, this is a classic case of 'no good deed goes unpunished,'” Butt wrote.
“We've requested a certificate for immediate review regarding the court's order,” said Butt. “We feel strongly that Judge Boulee ought to have granted our motion for summary judgment. We have a marked difference of opinion as to how discovery was conducted” and “are hopeful that Judge Boulee will give the Court Appeals an opportunity to review his decision.”
Levenson said the forceful order reflected Boulee's concern about the defense's tactics.
The order “should be considered by this defendant and others who behave as if discovery is a game rather than a set of rules,” said Levenson. “I admire the court's courage in carefully studying the case to reach the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCourt Advisory Committee Inches Forward on Transparency in Litigation Financing
Nashville DA Secretly Recorded Defense Lawyers, Other Office Visitors, Probe Finds
3 minute readJudge Sounds Alarm Over Persistent Circuit Split on 'Favorable Termination' Rule
Retired US Judge, Ethics Experts Ask 11th Circuit to Reassign Trump Classified Docs Case
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250