PAVARINI MCGOVERN, LLC v. Waterscape Resort LLC et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------X
In re: 	:
:
WATERSCAPE RESORT LLC, 	: 	Chapter 11
: 	Case No. 11-11593(SMB)
Debtor. 	:
---------------------------------------------X
PAVARINI MCGOVERN, LLC, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	: 	Adv. Proc. No. 11-02248
-- against -- 	:
:
WATERSCAPE RESORT LLC, et al. 	:
:
Defendants. :
---------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM DECISION AWARDING MONETARY
SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 37(b) OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
A P P E A R A N C E S:
BARTON BARTON & PLOTKIN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
420 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10170
Eric W. Sleeper, Esq.
Of Counsel
MEDINA LAW FIRM LLC
Attorneys Defendant Waterscape Resort LLC
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue
Seventh Floor
New York, NY 10174
Eric S. Medina, Esq.
John Carlson, Esq.
Of Counsel
STUART M. BERNSTEIN
United States Bankruptcy Judge:
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 1 of 38

2
The plaintiff Pavarini McGovern, LLC (“Pavarini”) has moved for discovery
sanctions against the defendant Waterscape Resort LLC (“Waterscape”)
charging Waterscape with a variety of discovery abuses and spoliation of
evidence. 	(See Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Produce Documents and
Comply with Court Directives, and for Spoliation of Evidence, dated Nov. 15,
2013 (“Sanctions Motion”) (ECF Doc. # 109.) 1 	The dispute spans many months,
involves mutual allegations of wrongdoing and has occupied a substantial
amount of time and effort. 	Having reviewed the long history of the discovery
dispute and the pertinent facts, the Court concludes that Pavarini is entitled to
an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $34,633.95 and
reasonable expenses in the amount of $1,110.45 pursuant to Rule 37(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based upon Waterscape’s failure to comply
with this Court’s verbal discovery order issued on July 30, 2013.
BACKGROUND
The background to this adversary proceeding is discussed at length in
Pavarini McGovern, LLC v. Waterscape Resort LLC (In re Waterscape Resort LLC),
483 B.R. 601 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Waterscape I”) and In re Waterscape
Resort LLC, No. 11-11593, 2014 WL 1389762 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2014)
(“Waterscape II”). 	I assume familiarity with those decisions and limit the
discussion, which is nonetheless lengthy, to the facts relevant to the Sanctions
Motion.
1 	“ECF” refers to the docket in this adversary proceeding.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 2 of 38

3
A. 	The Project
Waterscape owns property located at 66–70 West 45th Street in
Manhattan. 	On June 28, 2007, it entered into a Construction Management
Agreement (the “CMA”) with Pavarini that designated Pavarini as the
Construction Manager in connection with the project (the “Project”) to build a
45–story hotel and condominium building on Waterscape's property. 	Pavarini
hired subcontractors to do the work.
The Project was funded through loans from U.S. Bank, National
Association and USB Capital Resources, Inc. f/k/a USB Capital Funding Corp.
(collectively the “Bank”). 	Waterscape requested advances by submitting
monthly Draw Requests to the Bank based on information and documents
provided by Pavarini relating to the work covered by the Draw Request. 	Once
approved, the Bank transferred the funds to Waterscape which became trust
funds in the hands of Waterscape under Article 3-A of the New York Lien Law
(the “Lien Law”). 	Waterscape was not required to segregate the trust assets
from its own assets or the trust assets attributable to other projects, provided
that its books and records clearly showed the allocation to each trust of the
deposits into the unsegregated account. 	N.Y. LIEN L AW § 75(1)-(3).
To receive payment, Pavarini submitted monthly payment requests to
Waterscape. 	Waterscape used the funded Draw Requests to pay Pavarini, and
Pavarini paid the subcontractors and the vendors. 	The CMA included a
contractual dispute resolution procedure before a Dispute Resolution Board
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 3 of 38

4
(“DRB”), but a dispute did not affect the status of the trust funds paid by the
Bank to Waterscape.
B. 	The Adversary Proceeding
Waterscape commenced this chapter 11 case on April 5, 2011, and
Pavarini filed this adversary proceeding on June 10, 2011. 	The underlying
dispute concerned the allegations that the defendants’—particularly
Waterscape—had diverted trust funds. 	Pavarini charged, inter alia, that
Waterscape failed to pay Pavarini or otherwise account for $4,458,616.97 in
funded Draw Requests (the “Shortfall”).
Pavarini subsequently moved for summary judgment, and among other
things, sought to recover the Shortfall. 	In opposition, Waterscape pointed to its
Verified Statement Pursuant to Lien Law Section 76, sworn to Nov. 11, 2011
(“Verified Statement”)2 provided to Pavarini at an earlier time, showing that it
had received $85,157,163.64 in advances from Bank (Verified Statement, Ex. E)
and paid out the aggregate sum of $85,226,259.57 for trust fund purposes,
(id., Ex. G), or $69,095.93 more than it drew from Bank. 	The Lien Law
expressly vested Waterscape with the discretion to use the trust funds to pay
any trust fund expenses. 	Consequently, there would be no diversion if
Waterscape used part of a funded Draw Request to pay a trust fund expense
2 	A copy of the Verified Statement was annexed as Exhibit 20 to the Affidavit of William
Frederick in Support of Pavarini McGovern LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, sworn to
June 25, 2012 (ECF Doc. # 35).
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 4 of 38

5
that was not included in the expenses submitted by Waterscape to support the
particular Draw Request. 	Waterscape I, 483 B.R. at 612.
Pavarini conceded solely for the purpose of its summary judgment
motion that Waterscape had made the payments listed In the Verified
Statement for legitimate trust fund expenditures. 	As a result, Waterscape’s
“undisputed” evidence demonstrated that its trust fund expenditures exceeded
it trust fund receipts, and Waterscape rebutted the presumption of diversion.
Id. at 612. 	Consequently, the Court denied the portion of the summary
judgment motion directed at the Shortfall. 	Pavarini sought leave to appeal, but
the District Court denied the motion by order dated February 21, 2013, and
indicated that Pavarini should seek to press for a quick trial to resolve open
issues of fact. 	In re Waterscape Resort LLC, No. 11-11593 SMB, 2013 WL
658152, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2013).
C. 	The Discovery Request and the Subsequent Proceedings
After the District Court’s order, Pavarini served a Second Notice of
Request for Production of Documents and Deposition, dated Apr. 2, 2013
(“Second Request”). 3 	Request No. 5(a) sought every record of payment relating
to every transaction in Waterscape’s general ledger for the years 2007 through
3 	A copy of the Second Request is annexed as Exhibit A to the Motion and Memorandum of
Law of Pavarini McGovern, LLC for Entry of Order (1) Compelling Production of Documents, (2)
Setting Deposition Date(s) and (3) Imposing Sanctions, dated May 6, 2013 (“Motion to Compel”).
(ECF Doc. # 85.)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 5 of 38

6
and including 2011. 4 	Request No. 6 focused on the more limited universe of
expenditures detailed in the Verified Statement, and Request 6(a) requested
each “[c]heck (front and back), wire transfer confirmation and/or other record
of payment by Waterscape.”
The Second Request called for production by May 2, 2013. 	According to
Pavarini, Waterscape did not respond by the May 2, 2013 deadline; instead, it
informed Pavarini that it had just turned the discovery request over to the
appropriate counsel on May 1, 2013, and that counsel had not read the
demand. 	(Id. at ¶ 9.) 	Waterscape’s counsel contended that he requested a two-
week extension, but Pavarini refused. 	(Affirmation of Counsel [Eric S. Medina] in
Opposition to Pavarini McGovern, LLC’s Motion to Compel Discovery and in
Support of Cross Motion to Stay further Discovery, dated May 15, 2013, at ¶¶ 2-
3 (ECF Doc. # 87-2).)
Pavarini wasted no time. 	On May 6, 2013, only four days after the due
date for the discovery, it filed the Motion to Compel without requesting an
4 	Request No. 5 stated:
For each transaction shown on Waterscape's general ledger (showing the period
from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2011), which Waterscape provided
in discovery in this adversary proceeding (the “Ledger”), provide the following:
a. Check (front and back), wire transfer confirmation and/or other record of
payment by or to Waterscape;
b. The invoice or bill for the transaction; and
c. Each agreement or contract under which the transaction arose.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 6 of 38

7
informal conference with the Court.5 	As a result, the Court denied the Motion
to Compel without prejudice at the May 29, 2013 hearing based upon Pavarini’s
failure to comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-1(b). 	Instead, it treated the
motion as a request for an informal conference, directed the parties to meet
and confer and scheduled a chambers conference for June 11, 2013. 	(See
Letter from Eric W. Sleeper, Esq. to the Court, dated July 26, 2013 (ECF Doc. #
91).) 	The Court also denied Waterscape’s cross-motion to stay discovery.
As a result of the June 11, 2013 conference, Pavarini narrowed and
modified the Second Request. 	First, the original relevant timeframe was
reduced from 2007 through 2011 to July 23, 2008 through November 30,
2010. 	The reduced timeframe corresponded to the approximate period during
which the Shortfall had accumulated. 	Second, Pavarini withdrew Request Nos.
1, 11 and 12. 	Third, Pavarini agreed with or acceded to the Court’s observation
that several of the requests (Nos. 6, 9 and 10) overlapped with Request No. 5.
Fourth, discovery deadlines were set. 	The documents responsive to Request
No. 2 (financial transactions between Waterscape and certain affiliates),
Request No. 3 (agreements with investors regarding capital infusions in
Waterscape), Request No. 4 (retention agreements with accountants), Request
5 	Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-1(b) states:
Request for Informal Conference. No discovery-related motion under Bankruptcy
Rules 7026 through 7037 shall be heard unless counsel for the moving party
first requests an informal conference with the Court and either the request has
been denied or the discovery dispute has not been resolved as a consequence of
the conference.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 7 of 38

8
No. 7 (bank statements) and Request No. 8 (employment contracts with
controllers) were to be produced within two weeks, and the documents
responsive to Request No. 5 were to be produced within thirty days. 	(See Letter
from Eric W. Sleeper, Esq. to Eric S. Medina, Esq., dated June 13, 2013; Letter
from Eric S. Medina, Esq. to Eric W. Sleeper, Esq., dated June 14, 2013.)6
During the next several weeks, Waterscape produced documents
electronically and in hard copy, but the parties vehemently disputed whether
the production satisfied the modified document request, specifically Request
No. 5. 	Waterscape turned over six boxes of documents. 	According to Pavarini,
five of the boxes “contained virtually nothing more than the Requisitions that
Pavarini provided to Waterscape [and] [t]he sixth box [“Box No. 6”] contained
nothing more than the documentation that Waterscape previously provided in
response to Pavarini’s demands in the state courts for a Lien Law verified
statement from Waterscape.” 	(Letter from Eric W. Sleeper, Esq. to the Court,
dated July 26, 2013, at 2.) 	According to Waterscape, Pavarini’s representatives
spent only fifteen minutes reviewing the production, declared that it was
incomplete and left. 	(Letter from Eric S. Medina, Esq. to the Court, dated July
30, 2013 (ECF Doc. # 92).)
6 	Both letters are attached as exhibits to Mr. Sleeper’s July 26, 2013 letter to the Court.
(ECF Doc. # 91.)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 8 of 38

9
C. 	The July 30, 2013 Conference
The Court conducted another chambers conference on July 30, 2013.
This conference is important to the pending motion because the Court made
specific directions to Waterscape and stated what would happen if it failed to
comply. 	As summarized in a letter from Pavarini’s counsel, (Letter from Eric W.
Sleeper, Esq. & Daniel H. Crow, Esq. to Eric S. Medina Esq., dated Aug. 2, 2013
(ECF Doc. # 93)), Waterscape was required to produce by August 16, 2013
eighteen groups of documents identified in paragraph one of the letter. 7 	Items
A, B, C covered the payment records, invoices and agreements for each
transaction in the Waterscape general ledger, the same documents sought in
Request No. 5 in the Second Request, but limited the relevant time frame to
July 20, 2008 through November 30, 2010. 	In addition, Waterscape was
required to produce bank statements and transactional records not produced
in response to Item A relating to certain specified accounts (Items D through
O), bank reconciliations for each of the accounts (Item P), ledgers and sub-
ledgers pertaining to accounts maintained by Waterscape (Item Q), and
documents relating to each Draw Request that Waterscape submitted to the
Bank. 	(Item R.)
As noted, the parties disagreed whether Waterscape had already
produced all of its responsive documents, particular those relating to Items A,
7 	The Court has omitted the reference to “¶ 1” and cites to the subparagraphs as “Item”
followed by the appropriate letter.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 9 of 38

10
B and C. 	As a result, the Court further directed that to the extent that
Waterscape took the position that it did not have responsive documents in its
possession, custody or control, its manager, Salim Assa, was required to so
state in an affidavit, also to be furnished by August 16. 	Finally, Waterscape
would be precluded from introducing any document at trial that was within its
possession, custody or control but was not produced. 	Although Waterscape
continued to dispute Pavarini’s claims that it had failed to turn over the
documents in its possession, Waterscape’s counsel understood that the
direction to produce documents and/or provide the Assa affidavit reflected the
“instructions” of the Court, and “[t]o the extent the Debtor does not turnover
documents in its custody or control reasonably requested by Pavarini, the
Debtor shall be precluded from introducing such evidence at the time of trial of
this matter.” 	(Letter from Eric S. Medina, Esq. to Eric W. Sleeper, Esq. & Daniel
H. Crow, Esq., dated Aug. 9, 2013 (ECF Doc. # 94).)8
Following the July 30 conference, the parties continued to exchange
letters regarding Waterscape’s production that essentially repeated what they
had said previously. 	In its formal response to Pavarini’s modified document
8 	Mr. Medina’s letter implied that it had no obligation to turn over any documents
responsive to Items A, B and C until Pavarini specified what was missing. While Pavarini’s
specification—which it eventually provided in the form of a spreadsheet, (see Letter from Eric
W. Sleeper, Esq. & Daniel H. Crow, Esq. to Eric S. Medina Esq., dated Aug. 27, 2013 (ECF Doc.
# 96))—highlighted the deficiencies in Waterscape’s production, it was not a condition to
Waterscape’s obligation to produce responsive documents by August 16, 2013. In fact,
Waterscape consistently took the position that it had turned over everything, and never
deviated from that position even after Pavarini’s spreadsheet identified the deficiencies in
Waterscape’s production.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 10 of 38

11
request, (see Reorganized Debtor's Answers and Objections to Pavarini
McGovern, LLC’s Third Notice to Produce Documents, 9 dated Sept. 17, 2013
(“Waterscape Discovery Answers”)), Waterscape asserted numerous general
objections and stated (1) that it had produced everything it had that responded
to Items H, O, P and Q, (2) did not control the non-debtor affiliate accounts
that were the subject of Items I, J, K, L, M and N and had nothing further to
produce beyond what might have already been produced and (3) the Bank had
already produced the Draw Requests to Pavarini in state court litigation, and
Waterscape no longer had copies of the Draw Requests. 	The Waterscape
Discovery Answers did not mention Items A, B and C, the documents
corresponding to the general ledger transactions involving payments and
receipts.
Believing that Waterscape had not provided and would not provide the
Waterscape bank statements and other information it had demanded, Pavarini
served subpoenas on two banks in the middle of September to obtain
documentation and information relating to accounts maintained by
Waterscape, Salim Assa, Ezak Assa, 45 INMEX Corp., Catmex 45 Corp.,
9 	The Waterscape Discovery Answers are annexed as Exhibit 3 to the Objections of
Pavarini McGovern, LLC to Defendant Waterscape Resort LLC’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas to
Capital One, N.A. and U.S. Bank, N.A. as Well as Pavarini McGovern, LLCs Cross Motion for
Entry of Order, Inter Alia, Compelling Production of Documents, dated Oct. 1, 2013 (“Objections
to Quash”) (ECF Doc. # 100.) The Waterscape Discovery Answers referred to a Third Request
for the production of documents, dated August 13, 2013. The Court has not seen Pavarini’s
Third Request, but the Waterscape Discovery Answers indicates that the Third Request asked
for the same eighteen categories of documents described in Mr. Sleeper’s August 2, 2013 letter.
(ECF Doc. # 93.)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 11 of 38

12
Gemstone 45 LLC and Developmex 45 Corp. 	(Objections to Quash, at Exs. 5,
6.) 	Waterscape moved to quash the subpoenas. 	(Motion of Defendant,
Waterscape Resort LLC, to Quash Plaintiff’s Subpoenas to Capital One, N.A. and
US Bank, N.A., dated Sept. 24, 2013 (“Motion to Quash”) (ECF Doc. # 98).)
Pavarini opposed the motion and again cross-moved for an order compelling
production. 	(Objections to Quash.) 	Pavarini complained that Waterscape had
not produced any more documents with the Waterscape Discovery Answers or
an affidavit from Assa swearing that Waterscape did not have any more
documents to produce. 	(Id. at 18.) 	Pavarini also emphasized that Waterscape
had completely ignored Items A, B and C. 	(Id. (“Glaringly, Waterscape’s
Answers completely ignore the requests outlined in Paragraphs 1 (A) – 1 (C) of
the August 27 Letter.”))
The Court heard the motion, cross-motion and other matters on October
8, 2013. 	Initially, the Court addressed Waterscape’s renewed letter request to
stay discovery. 	(Transcript of Hearing, held Oct. 8, 2013 (“Tr. (10/8)”), at 6:8-
12:14 (ECF Doc. # 107).) 	The Court also denied the motion to quash the
subpoenas. 	The banks had not objected to the subpoenas or argued that
compliance was burdensome. 	(Id. at 12:24-13:2.) 	Furthermore, Waterscape
raised privacy and relevancy concerns, but conceded that it had already turned
over the same records to Pavarini without any promise of confidentiality. 	(Id. at
13:3-20.)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 12 of 38

13
When the Court turned to the cross-motion, Waterscape’s counsel, Mr.
Medina, promised the overdue Assa affidavit that same day and informed the
Court, for the first time, that “[w]e lost a lot of documents.” 	(Id. at 24:3-6.)
Hearing this, the Court suggested that Pavarini make a motion for sanctions
and provide the Court with a copy of whatever Waterscape produced. 	(Id. at
24:13-16.) 	The Court did not otherwise address the cross-motion.
Waterscape finally produced an affidavit from Assa on October 16, 2013.
Assa stated, in substance, that Waterscape had made a diligent search of its
records and had no further documentation to produce. 	(Affidavit of Salim
Assa, sworn to Oct. 16, 2013, at ¶¶ 7-8.)10 	He added that Waterscape could
not produce the bank records of affiliates despite the fact that Assa was a
member of the affiliate. 	(Id. at ¶ 9.) 	Finally, he revealed that Waterscape had
moved its offices one time during the preceding two years and believed that “to
the extent that any documents of the above have not been produced, they were
lost or misplaced relating to our move.” 	(Id. at ¶ 10.)
D. 	The QuickBooks Files
Following the October 8 conference, Pavarini took third party discovery to
determine whether unproduced documents existed. 	At his deposition one week
later, Leonard Zimmerman, the head of Waterscape’s accounting department,
10 	A copy of Mr. Assa’s affidavit is annexed as Exhibit 5 to the Affirmation in Support of
Pavarini McGovern, LLC’s Motion for Sanctions Against Waterscape Resort LLC for Failure to
Produce Documents and Comply with Court Directives and for Spoliation of Evidence, dated Nov.
15, 2013 (“Sleeper Affirmation”). (ECF Doc. # 110.)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 13 of 38

14
revealed that Waterscape maintained electronically stored information in the
form of QuickBooks accounting files, and these records included bank account
reconciliations, (Transcript of Deposition of Leonard Zimmerman, held Oct. 15,
2013, at 24:25-25:7),11 trial balances, (id. at 68:22-69:3), the check register,
(id. at 109:12-2), and the accounting journal entries. 	(Id. at 131:3-25.)
Lillian Mercado, Waterscape’s bookkeeper, confirmed Mr. Zimmerman’s
testimony. 	(Transcript of the Deposition of Lillian Mercado, held Nov. 25, 2013
ECF Doc. # 118).) 	Among other things, she testified that the Waterscape
maintained its records electronically in a QuickBooks file that included bank
reconciliations, (id. at 32:23-34:14), intercompany reconciliations, (id. at 36:10-
23), accounting journals that included journal entries describing transactions
which descriptions did not appear in the general ledger, (id. at 67:3-68:16),
Waterscape’s check register, (id. at 69:18-21), and the reason for payments to
or credits for the benefit of affiliated entities. 	(Id. at 203:12-205:20.) 	In
addition, she testified that Waterscape maintained a sub ledger for accounts
payable owed to Pavarini and copies of the requisitions with notations
explaining why a requisition was underpaid, (id. at 94:10-97:10; 134:8-137:20),
but had never seen a trust fund ledger and added that Waterscape did not keep
a separate ledger for trust funds for construction costs.12 	(Id. at 5:20-7:7,
11 	Excerpts of the Zimmerman deposition transcript are annexed to the Sleeper Affirmation
as Exhibit 7.
12 	Assa testified that Waterscape maintained a separate ledger for the Project’s trust
funds, (Sleeper Affirmation, Ex. 8, at 15:25-16:4), Pavarini stated that the separate trust fund
ledger was never produced. (Motion for Sanctions Against Waterscape Resort LLC for Failure to
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 14 of 38

15
169:6-171:16.) 	Finally, she stated that none of her accounting records were
missing or lost. 	(Id. at 48:10-14.)
E. 	The Sanctions Motion
In the interim, Pavarini made the Sanctions Motion that the Court had
invited, citing Waterscape’s repeated failure to produce relevant documents
and its spoliation of evidence. 	In opposition, Waterscape argued, inter alia,
that sanctions were inappropriate because it had not violated any Court order,
had worked diligently to produce everything that Pavarini requested, and had
not spoliated evidence. 	(See Reorganized Debtor’s Response to the Motion of
Pavarini McGovern, LLC for Sanctions and Spoliation of Evidence, dated Dec. 4,
2013, at 6-13 (ECF Doc. # 114).)
During December 2013, the Court conducted two more conferences. 	The
Court sought to put an end to the endless arguments in which Pavarini
contended that Waterscape had failed to produce responsive documents and
Waterscape argued that it had. 	Working with the color-coded ledger that
Pavarini had produced as an exhibit to the Motion to Compel, the Court directed
Waterscape to provide separate folders, corresponding to each line and page
reference in the ledger, that included the responsive documents that
Produce Documents and Comply with Court Directives and for Spoliation of Evidence, dated Nov.
15, 2013 (“Motion for Sanctions”), at 10 (ECF Doc. # 109)), but Waterscape implied that it had
been produced and produced another copy. (See Affirmation of Eric S. Medina, dated Dec. 4,
2013, Ex. I (ECF Doc. # 114-1).) In light of the status of the case and the disposition of the
Sanctions Motion, it is not necessary to resolve this disagreement.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 15 of 38

16
Waterscape claimed it had produced but Pavarini’s marked ledger indicated it
had never produced. 	(Transcript of Hearing, held Dec. 12, 2013, at 37:24-47:21
(ECF Doc. # 120).)
The proceedings that followed failed to resolve the dispute over
production. 	Waterscape initially failed to provide specific responses to the line
items that it challenged in Pavarini’s ledger, but Pavarini’s ledger was itself
problematic. 	First, many of the transactions in the general ledger were not
evidenced by an invoice or check, including the deposit of requisitioned funds,
inter account transfers, bank charges and year-end adjustments. 	(Affirmation
of Solly Assa, dated Dec. 23, 2013, at ¶¶ 4-7 (ECF Doc. # 122).)
Second, Pavarini’s ledger overstated the problem. 	Most of the
transactions involved two sets of entries: Waterscape booked an account
payable when a bill came in and debited cash (and reduced the account
payable) when the billed was paid. 	Pavarini’s general ledger indicated that
Waterscape had not produced any back up when the bill came in even though
it acknowledged in the spreadsheet attached to the August 27, 2013 letter
detailing the Box No. 6 deficiencies that Waterscape had provided the
documents supporting the payment.13 	The ledger also indicated that
Waterscape had produced evidence supporting the expenditure when payment
13 	The Court brought one example to Pavarini’s attention at the December 31, 2013
hearing. (Transcript of Hearing, held Dec. 31, 2013 (“Tr. (12/31)”), at 13:7-18, 17:24-19:21
(ECF Doc. # 135).) A comparison of the spreadsheet with Pavarini’s general ledger revealed
other examples.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 16 of 38

17
went out. 	In light of the noted inconsistencies within the ledger, the Court
refused to infer that Waterscape had failed to produce the supporting
documents that the spreadsheet and highlighted entries in the general ledger
indicated had been produced, and stated that it would leave the dispute to be
resolved on a document by document basis at trial. 	(Tr. (12/31), at 25:7-16.)
It was nevertheless clear from the Zimmerman and Mercado depositions
that Waterscape had not produced the QuickBooks files. 	In addition, Ms.
Mercado had revealed the existence of other relevant documents, including
copies of the requisition files with notations by Waterscape indicating why it
had not paid all of the funds drawn from the Bank to Pavarini.
As a result of the December 31 conference, the Court bifurcated the relief
sought in the Sanctions Motion, separating the requests for monetary and non-
monetary relief. First, it precluded Waterscape from introducing documents at
trial regarding any of the payments or transfers depicted on the general ledger
for the period from July 1, 2008 through November 30, 2010 that were in its
possession, custody or control but it had not produced. 	Furthermore, to the
extent that Waterscape had failed to turn over any documentation, Waterscape
was precluded from contending that the particular payment or transfer was a
trust fund expenditure. (Order on Motion of Pavarini McGovern, LLC for
Sanctions Against Waterscape Resort LLC for Failure to Produce Documents and
Comply with Court Directives, and for Spoliation of Evidence, dated Jan. 9, 2014
(the “Preclusion Order”) (ECF Doc. # 133).)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 17 of 38

18
Second, the Court sought to weed out the wholly undocumented
transactions prior to trial to expedite the trial regarding the remaining
transactions. 	The Preclusion Order set certain deadlines for the production of
schedules keyed to the Verified Statement that identified those payments or
transfers that Waterscape had failed to support with any documentation, and
hence, was precluded from arguing were trust fund expenditures. 	Waterscape
was given time to respond to specific expenditures that it contended were
covered by its document production and to provide the copies that it had
already produced.14
The Preclusion Order did not address the allegations of spoliation or the
issue of monetary sanctions. 	Waterscape was nevertheless concerned that the
Court had made findings that Waterscape had spoliated evidence based on the
deposition testimony of Ms. Mercado. 	Pavarini first disclosed the results of the
Mercado deposition in its reply papers, and Waterscape did not have an
opportunity to submit a written response. 	Pursuant to the Order Regarding
Sanctions Motion, dated Mar. 28, 2014 (ECF Doc. # 163), the Court granted
Waterscape the opportunity to respond to the charge “that Waterscape
maintained relevant, responsive documents, including QuickBooks files and
14 	The Court modified the Preclusion Order at Pavarini’s request to include transactions
that did not appear on the Verified Statement but which, according to Pavarini, amounted to
diversions during the period when the Shortfall accrued. (Supplement to Court’s January 9,
2014 Order on Motion of Pavarini McGovern, LLC for Sanctions Against Waterscape Resort LLC
for Failure to Produce Documents and Comply with Court Directives, and for Spoliation of
Evidence, dated Feb. 3, 2014 (ECF Doc. # 133).)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 18 of 38

19
hard copies of documents that explained why Waterscape had failed to pay the
entirety of several funded requisitions to Pavarini and the reason for holding
back those funds (the ‘Specific Requisition Files’).”
Salim Assa submitted an affidavit in response. 	(Affidavit of Salim Assa,
sworn to Apr. 4, 2014 (ECF Doc. # 165).) 	Mr. Assa asserted that Waterscape
produced the Specific Requisition Files on July 25, 2013, but Pavarini had
ignored them and left the production after only fifteen minutes. 	(Id. at ¶ 6.)
Exhibit B to his affidavit included approximately 330 Bates-stamped pages of
documents relating to numerous requisitions paid by the Bank and
subsequently disbursed, in whole or part, to Pavarini. 	Some of the documents
included handwritten notations and internal Waterscape emails.
Mr. Assa also offered excuses for not producing the QuickBooks files.
First, Pavarini never specifically asked for the QuickBooks files, but Assa
nevertheless authorized the production of the general ledger and trust ledger.15
(Id. at ¶ 9.) 	Second, the ledgers contained the same information as
QuickBooks and, therefore, the “QuickBooks file is inconsequential at best.”
(Id. at ¶ 10.) 	Third, Pavarini had refused to accept the QuickBooks files when
Waterscape offered them after discovery had closed. 	(See id. at ¶ 10.)
15 	The general ledger was produced prior to the Second Request as evidenced by the fact
that Request No. 5 expressly referred to the transactions depicted in the general ledger.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 19 of 38

20
E. 	The Final Accounting
Events overtook the discovery dispute. 	On March 11, 2014, the DRB
rendered its Final Accounting in which it concluded that Waterscape owed
Pavarini $8,093,655.92, plus interest at the annual rate of 15% on the
principal balance of $5,160,130.00 accruing from March 11, 2014 to the date
of payment. 	Waterscape II, 2014 WL 1389762, at *7. 	In Waterscape II, the
Court ruled that Waterscape must pay the debt prior to any judicial review,
and Waterscape subsequently satisfied the Final Accounting. 	The payment
mooted all of Pavarini’s claims for relief except for a monetary award sought in
the Sanctions Motion and a claim for punitive damages. 	Following the payment,
there were no further proceedings regarding discovery.
DISCUSSION
A. 	Introduction
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs discovery
sanctions. 	It states in relevant part:
(a) MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OR
DISCOVERY.
(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons,
a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.
The motion must include a certification that the movant has in
good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or
party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it
without court action.
. . . .
(3) Specific Motions.
. . . .
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 20 of 38

21
(B) To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking discovery
may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
production, or inspection. 	This motion may be made if:
. . . .
(iv) a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or
fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.
. . . .
(5) Payment of Expenses; Protective Orders.
(A) If the Motion Is Granted (or Disclosure or Discovery Is
Provided After Filing). If the motion is granted—or if the
disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was
filed—the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard,
require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the
motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay
the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,
including attorney’s fees. 	But the court must not order this
payment if:
(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to
obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action;
(ii) the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was
substantially justified; or
(iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
(B) If the Motion Is Denied. If the motion is denied, the court may
issue any protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) and must,
after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the
attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent
who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in
opposing the motion, including attorney’s fees. 	But the court must
not order this payment if the motion was substantially justified or
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
. . . .
(b) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER.
. . . .
(2) Sanctions Sought in the District Where the Action Is
Pending.
(A) For Not Obeying a Discovery Order. If a party or a party’s
officer, director, or managing agent—or a witness designated under
Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 21 of 38

22
court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.
They may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,
as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated
matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order
except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
. . . .
(C) Payment of Expenses. Instead of or in addition to the orders
above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney
advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure
was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award
of expenses unjust.
The only remaining issue raised in the Sanctions Motion concerns
Pavarini’s right to a monetary award for its reasonable legal fees and expenses.
Pavarini has provided the contemporaneous time records of its outside counsel,
Barton Barton & Plotkin LLP (“Barton”), for the period April 2, 2013 through
November 29, 2013, and highlighted in yellow those entries that pertain to its
request. 	(See Letter from Eric W. Sleeper, Esq. to the Court, dated Dec. 30,
2013, at Tab 2 (covering Oct. 1, 2013 through Nov. 29, 2013); Affirmation in
Support of Pavarini McGovern, LLC’s Motion for Sanctions Against Waterscape
Resort LLC for Failure to Produce Documents and Comply With Court Directives
and for Spoliation of Evidence, dated Nov. 15, 2013, at Ex. 11 (covering Apr. 2,
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 22 of 38

23
2013 through Sept. 30, 2013) (ECF Doc. # 110).) 	The firm’s top billing rate for
Mr. Sleeper, $400 per hour, is reasonable as are the lesser billing rates charged
for the work of associates and paralegals.
When a Court grants a motion to compel discovery or concludes that a
party has disobeyed a discovery order it must require the disobedient party or
its attorney to pay the reasonable expenses, including, including attorney’s
fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or
other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 	In calculating
reasonable fees under Rule 37, courts traditionally employ the lodestar method
which multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable
hourly rate. 	New York State NOW v. Cuomo, No. 93 Civ. 7146 (RLC), 1996 WL
689404, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 1996); AFP Imaging Corp. v. Philips Medizin
Systems, No. 92 Civ. 6211 (LMM), 1994 WL 698322, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 13,
1994); Monaghan v. SZS 33 Assocs., L.P., 154 F.R.D. 78, 83 (S.D.N.Y.1994).
Under the fee-shifting statutes, there is “[a] strong presumption that the
lodestar figure—the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate—
represents a ‘reasonable’ fee.” Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for
Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986); accord Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897
(1984) (“When . . . the applicant for a fee has carried his burden of showing
that the claimed rate and number of hours are reasonable, the resulting
product is presumed to be the reasonable fee . . . .”).
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 23 of 38

24
The party seeking fees must establish its fees usually through
contemporaneous time records, F.H. Krear & Co. v. Nineteen Named Trs., 810
F.2d 1250, 1265 (2d Cir. 1987) (“The burden is on counsel to keep and present
records from which the court may determine the nature of the work done, the
need for it, and the amount of time reasonably required; where adequate
contemporaneous records have not been kept, the court should not award the
full amount requested.”), and the disobedient party bears the burden of proving
that its failure was substantially justified or the imposition of monetary
sanctions would be unjust. 	Poliquin v. Garden Way, Inc., 154 F.R.D. 29, 31 (D.
Me. 1994). 	The amount of the sanction should not exceed the expenses that
are reasonably attributable to the violation. Turnbull v. Wilcken, 893 F.2d 256,
259 (10th Cir. 1990)( “[I]n the absence of a finding of bad faith, there must be a
sufficient nexus between noncompliance with the rules and the amount of fees
and expenses awarded as a sanction. 	The rules, by their terms, limit
assessments thereunder for the fees and expenses of the adverse party
resulting from noncompliance.”); Cobell v. Babbitt, 188 F.R.D. 122, 127 (D.D.C.
1999) (“A near ‘but for’ relationship must exist between the Rule 37 violation
and the activity for which fees and expenses are awarded.”)
Although Waterscape argues that Pavarini is not entitled to any legal fees
or expenses, it has not taken issue with any of Barton’s time records. 	The
Court nevertheless examined the records submitted by Barton, and as
discussed below, made its own determination of the reasonableness of and the
necessity for those services.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 24 of 38

25
B. 	Fees and Expenses Relating to the Motion to Compel
A motion to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) must include a
certification that the movant has conferred or attempted to confer in good faith
with the person or party from whom disclosure is sought in an effort to obtain
discovery without court action. 	FED. R. CIV . P. 37(a)(1); accord B ANKR .
S.D.N.Y.R. 	7007-1(a). 	Furthermore, the Court will not hear a discovery-related
motion “unless counsel for the moving party first requests an informal
conference with the Court and either the request has been denied or the
discovery dispute has not been resolved as a consequence of the conference.”
BANKR . S.D.N.Y.R. 7007-1(b).16 	These requirements are designed to facilitate
informal resolution of discovery disputes and avoid the time and expense of
extensive motion practice.
The Court denied Pavarini’s motion to compel from the bench on May 29,
2013. 	Pavarini had filed the Motion to Compel only four days after the date of
production called for in the Second Request and after rejecting the request by
Mr. Medina, Waterscape’s new counsel, for a two-week extension. 	The Motion
to Compel, signed by Pavarini’s counsel, stated that “he contacted counsel to
Waterscape concerning Waterscape’s failure to comply and in a good faith effort
to avoid court action, albeit hesitantly in light of the prior disclosure and
discovery disputes with Waterscape and the fact that they were rarely resolved
without court intervention.” 	(Motion to Compel at ¶ 17.) 	But the parties never
16 	The Court’s Local Rule is adapted from Rule 37.2 of the Local District Court Rules.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 25 of 38

26
discussed the merits of the Second Request, Mr. Sleeper summarily dismissed
Mr. Medina’s request for a brief extension, and his certification that they had
unsuccessfully conferred in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute
must be taken with a grain of salt.
Furthermore, Pavarini never requested a discovery conference with the
Court. 	Had it done so, it would have achieved the same result with a one
paragraph letter that it did with the Motion to Compel—a direction by the Court
to meet and confer and a subsequent discovery conference. 	According to
Barton’s time records for this period, Pavarini seeks compensation for legal fees
in the sum of $14,400.00 incurred between May 1, 2013 and May 29, 2013,
the date of the hearing, for Barton’s services related to the Motion to Compel.
In light of Pavarini’s failure to comply with the conditions to the
prosecution of the Motion to Compel, the lack of necessity for a formal motion
and the denial of the motion, the Court declines to award any monetary
compensation for attorney’s fees or expenses incurred during this period.
C. 	The Period May 29, 2013 through July 30, 2013
In the course of the ensuing meet and confer between the parties and
then with the Court on June 11, 2013, Pavarini withdrew three requests in the
Second Request, reduced the relevant time frame and acknowledged that some
of the other requests were duplicative. 	After the scope of the Second Request
was modified, the Court established deadlines for discovery.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 26 of 38

27
Waterscape thereafter produced at least six boxes of documents. 	The
quality of this production became the source of endless dispute. 	Pavarini has
maintained that the first five boxes consisted of nothing more than copies of its
own requisitions. 	Waterscape argues that Pavarini didn’t even take the time to
look at the production.
The record on this motion undercuts Pavarini’s position. 	Ms. Mercado
testified at her deposition that Waterscape’s own copy of the requisition
requests included handwritten notations indicating the disposition of the
funded Draw Requests, and why Waterscape did not pay Pavarini’s entire
requisition. 	Waterscape has provided over 300 pages from the five boxes, and
some of the pages include handwritten notations obviously made by a
Waterscape representative approving payment of requisitions, (see e.g.,
Affidavit of Solly Assa, sworn to Apr. 14, 2014 (ECF Doc # 165, Ex. B, at Bates
no. WATER0009706, WATER0009711, WATER0009728, WATER0009846,
WATER0009847), as well as internal Waterscape emails. 	(See, e.g., id. at
WATER0010000, WATER0011243, WATER0008866.) 	It strains credulity to
suggest that these internal Waterscape documents were included in the
requisitions turned over by Pavarini to Waterscape, and Pavarini should have
spent more time reviewing the documents in the five boxes. 	Waterscape also
produced Box No. 6, which included records relating to schedule of payments
in Exhibit G to the Verified Statement. 	We will return to Box No. 6 shortly.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 27 of 38

28
Between May 29, 2013, and July 30, 2013, Barton’s time records
indicate that it expended $5,080.00 in time dealing with discovery issues.
During this period, however, there was no pending motion to compel discovery
and no outstanding discovery order. 	Furthermore, the Court and the parties
pared Pavarini’s Second Request, and Waterscape produced a substantial
number of documents. 	Accordingly, the Court declines to award a
compensatory monetary sanction relating to attorneys’ fees and legal expenses
for the services expended by Barton addressing discovery issues during this
period.
D. 	The Discovery Order
The Court continued to conduct conferences relating to the discovery
disputes between the parties, and at a chambers conference held on July 30,
2013, issued a verbal order compelling discovery (the “Discovery Order”). 	The
terms of the Discovery Order are reflected in the letters exchanged between
counsel during early August and discussed above. 	Among other things,
Waterscape was required to produce all of the documents responsive to Items
A, B and C (the backup and other documents relating to the general ledger
transactions) by August 16, 2013. 	Waterscape was further directed to provide
an affidavit from Mr. Assa to the extent it contended it lacked responsive
documents, and was advised that it would be precluded from using any
documents it failed to produce.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 28 of 38

29
Although no motion was pending, and the Discovery Order was verbal
rather than written, it was nonetheless an order for the purpose of Rule 37(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	A verbal order will serve as the
predicate for discovery sanctions under Rule 37(b) if (1) the party to whom it
was directed had adequate opportunity to argue that the discovery should not
be compelled, and (2) the verbal order gave clear notice of what was required.
7 JAMES W M. M OORE ET AL ., MOORE ’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 37.42[3], at 37-68 to
37-69 (3d ed. 2014) (“MOORE ’ S FEDERAL P RACTICE ”); see Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v.
Playboy Enters., Inc., 663 F.2d 371, 388 (2d Cir. 1981)(“The fact that the March
22 order was oral rather than written, and that it was not entered pursuant to
a formal written Rule 37(a) motion, does not deprive it of any of its binding
force and effect.”); Jones v. Uris Sales Corp., 373 F.2d 644, 647-48 (2d Cir.
1967) (Friendly, J.) (disregard of a clear oral direction by a judge during a
chambers conference to comply with a subpoena justified an award of
sanctions under Rule 37(b)); cf. Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) S.A.L., 729
F.2d 469, 472 (7th Cir. 1984) (“Although a motion to compel usually precedes
the imposition of Rule 37(b) sanctions, a formal motion is not always
necessary. 	In general, where a party has received adequate notice that certain
discovery proceedings are to occur by a specific date, and that party fails to
comply, a court may impose sanctions without a formal motion to compel the
discovery from the opposing party.”).
The July 30 conference was one of an ongoing series of discovery
conferences. 	At the conference, the parties and the Court extensively reviewed
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 29 of 38

30
the issues with input from Waterscape. 	Unlike the June 11 conference where
the Court merely fixed deadlines to comply with the revised discovery requests,
the Court directed Waterscape on July 30, 2013 to produce the documents or
confirm through Mr. Assa that it could not, and stated the consequences for
noncompliance. 	The Court’s direction was clear and unambiguous, and
Waterscape understood that the Court was issuing a direction; its letter
recounting the July 30 conference referred to the Court’s “instructions.” 	(Letter
from Eric S. Medina, Esq. to Eric W. Sleeper, Esq. & Daniel H. Crow, Esq., dated
Aug. 9, 2013 (ECF Doc. # 94).)
Waterscape failed to comply with the Discovery Order in two respects.
First, it did not produce any documents responsive to Items A, B and C by
August 16, 2013. 	Instead, it took the position that it had produced all of the
responsive documents in its custody or control, but subsequent events revealed
a glaring omission; Waterscape had apparently never conducted a search of its
electronically stored information, and as a result, failed to produce its
QuickBooks files in accordance with the Discovery Order. 17
Waterscape has taken the position that the QuickBooks files contain the
identical information found in the general ledger that was previously given to
Pavarini (i.e., “no harm, no foul”). 	The testimony of Mr. Zimmerman and Ms.
17 	Waterscape eventually offered to produce the QuickBooks files after the Court had
entered the Preclusion Order, but Pavarini declined the offer. Presumably, it did not wish to
reopen discovery and face the possibility that the Preclusion Order might be modified allowing
Waterscape to use the QuickBooks files at trial.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 30 of 38

31
Mercado demonstrate the inaccuracy of this contention. 	In particular, Ms.
Mercado testified that the QuickBooks files included accounting journals
containing journal entries with descriptions of the transactions that did not
appear in the general ledger, the bank reconciliations and intercompany
reconciliations, the check register and the reasons for payments to or credits
for the benefit of Waterscape’s affiliated entities. 	In the course of these
proceedings, the Court has received several versions of the general ledger and
none of these versions contain the information that Ms. Mercado described.
Waterscape also contends that Pavarini never specifically asked for the
QuickBooks files, but this contention also lacks merit. 	Although Pavarini
requested many specific documents, it also requested categories of documents.
Request No. 5(a) in the Second Request, repeated as Item A, asked for all
documents relating to the payments and receipts depicted in the general
ledger. 	The QuickBooks files were obviously responsive to this request.
Second, Mr. Assa did not provide his affidavit by August 16. 	In fact, he
did not provide it until approximately two months later and only after more
conferences, more letters and another motion to compel by Pavarini. 	Moreover,
the affidavit was wrong because it stated that Waterscape did not have any
more responsive documents when, in fact, it had never produced the
QuickBooks files.
Pavarini incurred legal expenses, including attorneys’ fees, as a result of
Waterscape’s failure to comply with the Discovery Order that, through
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 31 of 38

32
Pavarini’s efforts, culminated in the disclosure of the QuickBooks files.
Because no disobedience occurred before August 16, 2013, I decline to award
compensatory monetary sanctions against Waterscape for the period August 1,
2013 through August 16, 2013. 18
Between August 17, 2013 and October 7, 2013, Pavarini incurred
$22,992.00 in legal fees. 	The Court has examined Barton’s time entries, and
concludes that the award must be reduced. 	First, a few of the entries during
this period relate to work done solely in connection with Waterscape’s request
to stay the adversary proceedings or Waterscape’s own discovery demands.19
Pavarini is not entitled to discovery sanctions in connection with these services
because they were independent of Waterscape’s disobedience of the Discover
Order. 20
Second, other time entries included non-compensable services that were
block billed or “lumped” with compensable work directly related to
18 	According to Barton’s time records, it billed $5,140.00 in time during that approximate
two week period.
19 	See e.g., 8/29/13 (Drafted correspondence to Joel and Dan concerning the discussion
had with E. Medina regarding PMG’s responses to WR’s document requests and follow up on
the same ($80.00)); 10/3/2013 (Research cases per request of E. Sleeper; summarize findings
related to WR’s latest stay request and potential sanctions and communicate with E. Sleeper re
same ($382.50).)
20 	The compensable services nevertheless include the prosecution of objections to the
Motion to Quash. A court may impose compensatory sanctions for expenses incurred in
connection with the frivolous protraction of proceedings. 7 M OORE ’ S F EDERAL P RACTICE §
37.51[9], at 37-113. Waterscape sought to quash Pavarini’s bank subpoenas directed at
Waterscape’s own banks on privacy and relevancy grounds even though Waterscape claimed it
had produced the same documents without any understanding of confidentiality. The Motion to
Quash was frivolous in this regard, and was denied summarily from the bench.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 32 of 38

33
Waterscape’s disobedience of the July 30 Order.21 	Block billing or lumping, a
timekeeping practice that involves including multiple services in a single,
aggregated time entry without any breakdown of the time spent on each
service, complicates a court’s efforts “to gauge the reasonableness of time
expended on each activity.” 	Ass’n of Holocaust Victims for Restitution of
Artwork & Masterpieces v. Bank of Australia Creditanstalt, No. 04 Civ. 3600
(SWK), 2005 WL 3099592, at *5-6, *5 n.9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2005); accord LV v.
New York City Dep’t of Educ., 700 F. Supp. 2d 510, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(“[B]lock-billing can make it ‘exceedingly difficult for courts to assess the
reasonableness of the hours billed.’ 	In such circumstances courts have found
it appropriate to cut hours across the board by some percentage.”) (internal
citations omitted); Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 975 F. Supp. 317,
327 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“Fee applicants should not lump several services or tasks
into one time sheet entry because it is then difficult, if not impossible, for a
court to determine the reasonableness of the time spent on each of the
individual services or tasks provided . . . . 	It is not the court’s job to decipher
21 	See, e.g., 9/13/13 (Finalize and forward correspondence to E. Medina regarding no stay
of discovery, the upcoming depositions, the need for his client to produce documents no later
than next Tuesday and related ($80.00)); 10/1/13 (Completed remaining analysis/research
with respect to WR’s motion to quash and for a stay of proceedings, as well as PMG’s cross
motion to compel and for sanctions with respect to WR’s ongoing failure to comply with PMG’s
discovery requests and flagrant non-compliance ($760.00); 10/1/13 (Continued work on,
finalized and had filed and EWS served PMG’s objections to WR’s motion to quash and for a
stay of proceedings and PMG’s cross motion to compel and for sanctions ($720.00)); 10/1/13
(Correspondence with Joel and with Dan regarding PMG’s objections to WR’s motion to quash
and to stay proceedings and PMG’s cross motion and the finalization of the same and brief call
with Dan on the same ($120.00)) 10/3/13 (Research cases per request of E. Sleeper;
summarize findings related to WR’s latest stay request and potential sanctions and
communicate with E. Sleeper re same ($382.50).)
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 33 of 38

34
time entries and guess how much time each activity took . . . . 	It is the
responsibility of the applicant to make separate time entries for each activity.’”)
(quoting In re Poseidon Pools of Am., Inc., 180 B.R. 718, 731 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
1995) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“[C]ourts have recognized that it is unrealistic to expect a trial judge to
evaluate and rule on every entry in an application [and] have endorsed
percentage cuts as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application.”
New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146
(2d Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). 	To address problems like block billing and
vagueness, courts routinely apply across the board reductions. 	United States
Football League v. Nat’l Football League, 887 F.2d 408, 415 (2d Cir. 1989)
(affirming across the board reduction for vague time entries); Colon v. City of
New York, Nos. 09 CV 0008 (JBW), 2012 WL 691544, at *21 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9,
2012) (collecting cases); Reiter v. Metro. Transp. Auth. of the State of New York,
No. 01 Civ. 2762 (GWG), 2007 WL 2775144, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2007)
(collecting cases); Klimbach v. Spherion Corp., 467 F. Supp. 2d 323, 332
(W.D.N.Y. 2006) (applying a 10% across the board reduction for vague billing
entries); Ass’n of Holocaust Victims, 2005 WL 3099592, at *7 (reducing lodestar
amount by 25% to account for instances of block billing, vagueness and
excess). 	In light of the billing of the block billing and the billing of non-
compensable services, the Court will reduce the monetary sanction by 10% for
the fees incurred during this period, and award $20,692.80. 	The Court will
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 34 of 38

35
apply the same percentage reduction to the expenses accrued during this
approximate period ($159.02), and award $143.12.
Pavarini is entitled to all of the fees and disbursements incurred on and
after October 8, 2013 through November 29, 2013. 	The parties attended a
conference on October 8, 2013, at which Pavarini advised the Court of the
possibility that Waterscape had spoliated evidence, and the Court suggested
that Pavarini make the Spoliation Motion. 	Between October 8, 2013 and
November 29, 2013, the last date to which Barton’s time records speak,
Pavarini incurred legal fees preparing for the October 8 hearing or preparing
and then prosecuting the Sanctions Motion. 	All of these services were directly
related to Waterscape’s disobedience of the Discovery Order. 	The time charges
amount to $13,941.15, and the corresponding expenses total the sum of
$376.00 in October and $581.33 in November.
E. 	Spoliation
Pavarini also seeks sanctions on the ground that Waterscape spoliated
evidence; Mr. Assa admitted that some documents were lost when Waterscape
moved from one premises to another. 	“Spoliation is the destruction or
significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for
another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.”
Wets v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir. 1999). 	A court
may impose sanctions under Rule 37(b) against a spoliator, but even in the
absence of a court order, it may punish the spoliator under its inherent
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 35 of 38

36
powers. 	Id. 	Whether a party should be sanctioned for spoliating evidence is a
three part inquiry: (1) did the party have a duty to preserve, (2) did the party
have a culpable state of mind, and (3) was the spoliated evidence relevant to
the pending litigation. 	Zublake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216
(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (citing Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, 243 F.3d 93, 107-12 (2d
Cir. 2001)).
Pavarini has satisfied the first two prongs. 	“The obligation to preserve
evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to
litigation or when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant
to future litigation.” 	Fujitsu Ltd. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 247 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 891 (2001); accord Zublake, 220 F.R.D. at 216.
Pavarini and Waterscape had been involved in litigation before the DRB and in
state court even prior to the commencement of the chapter 11 case, and the
duty to preserve was triggered no later than June 2011 when this adversary
proceeding was commenced. 	Waterscape moved on July 20, 2012, over one
year later, (Affirmation of Eric S. Medina, dated Dec. 4, 2013, Ex. J, at 40:3-8
(ECF Doc. # 114), and lost the evidence after the duty to preserve was
triggered.
In addition, Waterscape acted with a “culpable state of mind.” 	While
there is no evidence that Waterscape acted intentionally or in bad faith, a
culpable state of mind includes ordinary negligence. 	Residential Funding Corp.
v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002). 	Here, Waterscape lost
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 36 of 38

37
documents during a move due to its negligent failure to safeguard the
documents against loss.
The third prong raises the more difficult issue. 	Where, as here, the
spoliating party was merely negligent, the innocent party must prove both
relevance and prejudice in order to justify a severe sanction. 	Byrnie, 243 F.3d
at 108; Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of
Am. Secs., LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 456, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). 	Pavarini has proved
neither. 	There is no basis to conclude that the spoliated documents were
relevant to the litigation pending at the time, or that they do not exist in
another, electronic format. 	Moreover, Ms. Mercado testified that none of her
accounting records were lost, and the Quick Books files appear to be intact.
Accordingly, Pavarini has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to sanctions
based on spoliation.
Even if Pavarini showed that it was entitled to sanctions for spoliation of
evidence, no further sanctions would be warranted. 	The Preclusion Order
prevented Waterscape from offering at trial any documents in its custody or
control that it failed to produce in discovery. 	In addition, it precluded
Waterscape from arguing that wholly undocumented payments appearing in
the general ledger and made between July 1, 2008 and November 30, 2008
were trust fund expenditures. 	The Court would not be inclined to impose any
further non-monetary sanctions.
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 37 of 38

38
Furthermore, this adversary proceeding is essentially over, and at this
juncture, non-monetary sanctions would not serve any purpose. 	Waterscape
has paid Pavarini in excess of $10 million to satisfy the Final Accounting, and
Pavarini has recovered everything that it is entitled to under the CMA. 	The
Final Accounting is still subject to judicial review, but neither party has as yet
sought judicial review, and if judicial review ensues, the focus will be the
findings and conclusions in the Final Accounting rather than the claims in this
adversary proceeding. 	As matters stand and with the possible exception of its
punitive damage claim, Pavarini has no unresolved claims against Waterscape
in this litigation.
Finally, the Court has already awarded monetary sanctions relating to
Waterscape’s disobedience of the Discovery Order, and any additional monetary
sanction would duplicate the existing award.
The Court has considered the remaining arguments made by the parties
and concludes that they lack merit. 	Settle order on notice.
Dated: 	New York, New York
January 21, 2015
/s/ Stuart M. Bernstein
STUART M. BERNSTEIN
United States Bankruptcy Judge
11-02248-dsj Doc 215 Filed 01/21/15 Entered 01/21/15 12:11:12 Main Document
Pg 38 of 38