Lexplug logoLexplug

Morales v. Zondo, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5679, 50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 209, 204 F.R.D. 50 (2001)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney's conduct during a deposition that frustrates the fair examination of the deponent, such as through pervasive interruptions, improper objections, witness coaching, and ad hominem attacks, warrants sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2), 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court's inherent power.


Facts:

  • Ivelisse Morales was an employee of Zondo, Inc.
  • Robert Elizondo was the principal of Zondo, Inc.
  • During her employment, Morales became pregnant.
  • Zondo, Inc. disciplined Morales and ultimately terminated her employment.
  • Morales asserted that her discipline and termination constituted pregnancy and gender discrimination.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ivelisse Morales (plaintiff) filed an action against Zondo, Inc. (defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for pregnancy and gender discrimination.
  • During discovery, plaintiff's counsel deposed defendant's principal, Robert Elizondo, who was defended by attorney Eric Nelson.
  • Following the deposition, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions against Nelson due to his conduct during the deposition.
  • Defendant opposed the motion for sanctions and made a cross-request for sanctions against plaintiff's counsel.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an attorney's conduct during a deposition—including pervasive interruptions, improper objections, private conferences with the deponent, instructions not to answer, and ad hominem attacks—frustrate the fair examination of the deponent and warrant sanctions?


Opinions:

Majority - Schwartz, District Judge

Yes, such conduct warrants sanctions. An attorney's behavior during a deposition must adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which require objections to be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative, non-suggestive manner. The court found that defense counsel Eric Nelson's conduct pervasively disrupted the deposition of his client, Robert Elizondo. Nelson's actions included making lengthy and argumentative objections, improperly instructing the witness not to answer questions where no privilege was at issue, engaging in private consultations with the witness, and making personal attacks against opposing counsel. The court determined this behavior frustrated the fair examination of the deponent under Rule 30(d)(2), unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and demonstrated bad faith, thus justifying sanctions.



Analysis:

This case serves as a clear judicial warning regarding the boundaries of zealous advocacy during depositions. It reinforces that counsel's behavior is governed by rules of professional conduct that prohibit obstructive and vexatious tactics. The court's decision affirms its authority and willingness to use Rule 30, statutory powers like § 1927, and its own inherent power to police discovery abuse. This opinion provides a concrete example of sanctionable conduct, guiding future attorneys on what crosses the line from permissible objections to impermissible frustration of the discovery process.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Morales v. Zondo, Inc. (2001) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Morales v. Zondo, Inc.