Supreme Court Decision - Alaska Department of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE State of Alaska, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Dennis Lee d/b/a United Community ) Services of America, ) ) Defendant. ) ) 3AN-01-10170 Civil Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should not be Held in Contempt This is an action under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, AS 45.50.471. It arises from an ad placed in the Anchorage Daily News for a demonstration of technology. The Complaint alleges that the ad claimed that Defendant’s presentation would include proof that water can “flow up hill without using a pump”, that “one can burn pure water to cut through thick steel” and “transmutate the nucleus of an atom to neutralize radioactive waste.” Complaint at page 2. This Complaint was filed in August 2001. The file demonstrates that Defendant’s delays have caused almost no progress to be made since that time. The reasons for the delays range from Defendant’s persistent filing of improper pleadings and ignoring APPENDIX - Page 1 of 9 6033
Alaska court rules to repeated requests for initial disclosures and discovery responses 1 being ignored by the Defendant. On July 24, 2002, the State filed a Motion to Compel. I granted the Motion by Order dated September 3, 2002. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Defendant. I denied it on September 20, 2002. A Motion for Order to Show Cause was filed by the State on November 1, 2002. The Motion alleges that the Defendant had not filed supplemental discovery in response rd th to my September 3 or September 20 Orders. A hearing was held on March 12, 2003 on the motion for Order to Show Cause. Ms. Drinkwater appeared at the hearing on behalf of the State of Alaska. Ms. McMahon participated in the hearing telephonically on behalf of the Defendant, having received 1 On October 4, 2001, Defendant first requested an extension of time to file an Answer because he was on a national tour. Judge Joannides granted an extension until February 8, 2002. On February 11, 2002, the Court provided Defendant’s in-house counsel with a copy of ARCP 81 regarding the admission of counsel pro hac vice. Mr. Lee nevertheless filed Answers that he signed himself, purporting to answer on behalf of a corporate entity. Meanwhile, a Pretrial Scheduling Order was entered requiring Initial Disclosures to be exchanged by May 14, 2002. Defendant did not produce these, nor were the State’s initial discovery requests answered. The State moved for the extension of pretrial deadlines and filed its Motion to Compel on July 24, 2002. Defendant’s Opposition was late and offered no explanation for the failure to provide Initial Disclosures, responses to requests for admission or more than cursory responses to the remaining discovery requests. The Motion to Compel was granted, including the requirement that for withheld documents sufficient information had to be provided in order for the State to challenge any claims of privilege. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Defendant, not signed by local counsel or counsel for the Defendant, though this defect was later cured. The Motion for Reconsideration argued the merits of the Motion to Compel for the first time, but failed to specifically state the grounds for reconsideration specified in ARCP 77(I). As noted, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied by Order dated September 20, 2002. APPENDIX - Page 2 of 9 6033
Page 1 and 2: Notice: This opinion is subject to
Page 3 and 4: website also announced related oppo
Page 5 and 6: In June 2003 the state moved for su
Page 7 and 8: Parties may obtain discovery regard
Page 9 and 10: and 77. Civil Rule 52(a) states tha
Page 11 and 12: (E) other factors deemed appropriat
Page 13 and 14: discovery sanction that dismisses c
Page 15 and 16: the process the court followed is h
Page 17: In his opening and reply briefs, Le
Page 21 and 22: conclusion, at page 9 of the pleadi
Page 23 and 24: prejudice resulting from Defendant
Page 25 and 26: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE

Supreme Court Decision - Alaska Department of Law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?