Judge Lifts Contempt Order Against Chartwell Over Client Records
A federal judge in Philadelphia said he found that Chartwell never intentionally withheld court records related to former client Paul Baxendale-Walker.
May 08, 2018 at 04:31 PM
4 minute read
Chartwell Law Offices has been freed from a contempt order over a former client's legal records, after a federal judge found the firm was willing to comply with records requests, and simply never received instruction on which materials were privileged.
In an order filed May 4, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said he found that Chartwell never intentionally withheld court records related to former client Paul Baxendale-Walker.
“To the contrary, Chartwell was ready and willing to timely comply with the May 29, 2015, subpoena by letter to plaintiff's counsel, identifying the documents in [Kenneth] Dubrow's possession together with a privilege log based on attorney-client privilege until he was repeatedly instructed by [Baxendale-Walker's new lawyer Matheiu] Shapiro not to do so,” Schmehl said.
Marks & Sokolov and Chartwell Law Offices argued in multiple letters to Schmehl about who should provide the material needed to execute a summary judgment on Baxendale-Walker, a onetime client of both firms. Schmehl found Chartwell Law in contempt for failing to produce documents, but Chartwell argued that the court should vacate its order and give Chartwell more time to find its records.
Schmehl ordered Chartwell to pay $1,250 in attorney fees related to the contempt motion, as well as additional sanctions.
Chartwell said it did not provide the documents because the firm no longer represents Baxendale-Walker, and because Baxendale-Walker's new counsel, Mathieu Shapiro of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, told Chartwell not to provide certain documents because they were privileged. Marks & Sokolov has argued in its own letters that those reasons were not sufficient for failing to provide the nonprivileged subpoenaed materials, which include Baxendale-Walker's medical records.
Chartwell's Kenneth Dubrow withdrew his appearance in June 2015, the same day that Shapiro entered his own, court records show.
According to an August opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Shahrokh Mireskandari and Baxendale-Walker hired Bruce Marks of Marks & Sokolov to represent them in a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act matter in California. But they failed to pay Marks for his legal services, so Marks & Sokolov sued its clients for breach of contract and quantum meruit.
After Marks & Sokolov sued, Mireskandari and Baxendale-Walker failed to file an answer to the complaint. So the district court entered summary judgment of nearly $230,000.
Mireskandari and Baxendale-Walker appealed the summary judgment, but while that appeal was pending, the district court also found Baxendale-Walker in contempt for refusing to comply with execution discovery orders. Baxendale-Walker appealed the contempt order as well.
In August, the Third Circuit affirmed both the summary judgment order and the contempt order.
After the Third Circuit ruled, the district court entered an order Nov. 6 holding Baxendale-Walker in contempt once again, and issuing a warrant for his arrest. According to that order, Baxendale-Walker must pay more than $220,000, plus $12,000 in attorney fees, to purge his contempt order. The court has ordered him to pay $250 per day in fines, including $237,500 that had already accumulated as of Oct. 16.
In a separate Nov. 6 order, the court gave Chartwell five days to produce the documents in full, or else be fined $250 per day. In addition, the court ordered Chartwell to cover the $1,250 in attorney fees required to bring the contempt motion.
“Neither plaintiff's counsel nor Shapiro ever advised Dubrow if they had reached an agreement on the privilege issues,” Schmehl wrote. “Instead, Dubrow was served by plaintiff's counsel with a motion to find Chartwell in contempt for failing to comply with the May 29, 2015, subpoena.”
Dubrow, of Chartwell, did not respond to a call seeking comment Tuesday. Neither did Tom Sullivan of Marks & Sokolov, who is representing his firm in the matter.
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 All'The World Didn't End This Morning': Phila. Firm Leaders Respond to Election Results
4 minute readSettlement With Kleinbard in Diversity Contracting Tiff Allows Pa. Lawyer to Avoid Sanctions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Holds New York City in Contempt Over Conditions at City Jails
- 2FTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
- 3Ignore the Decline in US Rule of Law at Your Peril
- 4How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
- 5Jury Awards $1.25M to Police Officer Who Claimed Sexual Harassment
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