Lindsey v. Conteh

The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeals’ review centered on the propriety of a discovery referee’s order imposing $100,000 in discovery sanctions against defendants Alieu B. M. Conteh (Conteh), Odessa Capital Inc., Dominique Financial, Ltd., OOA ONE, LLC, and OOA TWO, LLC (collectively, defendants), for failure to comply with a prior discovery order. Defendants contended the referee, stipulated to by the parties to rule on all discovery related matters, erred in imposing monetary sanctions due to both procedural and substantive defects. Among other things, they argued that defendants’ “substantial compliance” with the prior discovery order, combined with Conteh’s expressed willingness to sit for an additional deposition and produce additional documents, precluded the levying of any sanctions. They also claimed the amount of sanctions was unjustified. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that the referee’s order, filed with the trial court, was appealable. In the unpublished portion, the Court addressed the merits of defendants’ appeal and rejected their challenges to the imposition and amount of monetary sanctions. Defendants conceded below that they failed to comply with the prior discovery order, and the referee did not abuse her discretion under the circumstances either in determining monetary sanctions were appropriate despite Conteh’s promises about his future actions, or in calculating the amount of appropriate sanctions. View "Lindsey v. Conteh" on Justia Law