Barbera v. Grailed, Inc, 1:24-cv-03535

Plaintiff Robert Barbera sued Grailed, LLC alleging copyright infringement for unauthorized use of a photograph of Jonah Hill.
Barbera, represented by Sanders Law Group, filed the original and amended complaints in May and June 2024.
The Court established a case management plan with specific discovery deadlines including initial disclosures, document requests, depositions, and admissions.
Defendant Grailed claimed Plaintiff repeatedly missed discovery deadlines, failed to serve initial disclosures, did not attend his deposition, and provided deficient discovery responses.
Multiple motions for sanctions were filed; Plaintiff moved to strike Defendant's sanctions motion, while Defendant moved for sanctions including dismissal or costs.
On March 5, 2025, the Court ruled on these motions, addressing the parties' repeated discovery disputes and Plaintiff's noncompliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to Serve Initial Disclosures	Delay justified by clerical error, believed disclosures sent	No disclosures ever served, notice repeatedly given	Plaintiff failed to serve; excuses rejected; sanctions warranted
Failure to Attend Noticed Deposition	Believed date was tentative, required confirmation, ready to reschedule	Deposition noticed properly; Plaintiff unilaterally tried to cancel	Plaintiff at fault for nonappearance; sanctions imposed
Deficient Discovery Responses	Delay due to production burden; claims all documents produced	Responses late, incomplete, with improper objections; key docs withheld	Plaintiff improperly withheld docs based on waived objections; compelled to produce
Sanctions: Dismissal vs. Lesser Sanctions	Dismissal too harsh; circumstances justify leniency	Only dismissal will cure prejudice, noncompliance willful	Dismissal denied for now, but preclusion, monetary sanctions, and further orders issued

Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 2009) (Dismissal is a harsh remedy for discovery abuse, to be used only in extreme cases of willfulness/bad faith)
Novak v. Wolpoff & Abramson LLP, 536 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2008) (District courts have wide discretion in imposing sanctions for discovery violations)
In re Jaffe, 585 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2009) (Attorneys responsible for paralegal supervision and client obligations)
Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 916 F.2d 759 (2d Cir. 1990) (Factors for court’s discretion in issuing sanctions, including willfulness and prejudice)
Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2006) (Court’s authority under Rule 37 for preclusion sanctions for discovery noncompliance)