Kasten Berry Inc. v. Stewart
2:24-cv-02270
| D. Kan. | May 6, 2025Background
- Kasten Berry Inc. provides point-of-sale (POS) systems and related services, generating revenue through transaction processing.
- Defendant, Wallace Stewart, was employed as a sales representative and entered into an employment agreement with Kasten Berry in May 2022.
- The employment agreement included non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions.
- Kasten Berry alleges Stewart breached the agreement by diverting customers to competitor Pay Compass LLC, where Stewart now works.
- The dispute over discovery responses began while Stewart was represented by counsel and persisted after he became pro se; the discovery period was largely consumed by unresolved discovery deficiencies.
- Plaintiff's motion to compel arose after Stewart failed to respond to discovery requests and did not comply with court orders or deadlines, even after receiving extensions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to provide complete discovery responses | Stewart's responses were incomplete, unverified, and contained improper objections; requests repeated guidance from the Court. | Denied wrongdoing; claimed inability to provide some information due to Pay Compass employment. | Motion to compel granted as uncontested; objections overruled. |
| Withholding documents on confidentiality/trade secrets | Protective Order is in place, so no reason to withhold documents on confidentiality grounds. | Asserted confidentiality as basis for withholding some documents. | Confidentiality not a valid reason; must produce documents. |
| Sanctions for failure to comply with discovery and deadlines | Sanctions justified due to repeated delays and disregard of court orders; no substantial justification for noncompliance. | Claimed lack of legal knowledge, inability to afford counsel, employer restrictions. | Ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. |
| Requirement to sign/verify interrogatory responses | Stewart must sign and verify responses, per Federal Rules and local practice. | No explicit response; responses were unsworn. | Ordered to sign and verify interrogatories by set date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (control includes ability to obtain documents, not just physical possession)
- AdvantEdge Bus. Group v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233 (court may sanction for failure to comply with procedure or to defend case)
- Super Film of Am., Inc. v. UCB Films, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 649 (defines 'control' in discovery context)
- Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F. Supp. 1127 (addresses document control for discovery purposes)
- Ice Corp. v. Hamilton-Sundstrand Corp., 245 F.R.D. 513 (further outlines concept of control for discovery)