TCPA v. Young

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>23CA0891 TCPA v Young 09-19-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA0891 </div>
<div>El Paso <span>County District Court No. 21CV31668 </span>
</div>
<div>Honorable <span>William B. Bain</span>, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>TCPA Litigator List, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellant, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Adam Young; Tubmanburg Limited, a Bahamas corporation a/k/a Ringba; and </div>
<div>Ringba, LLC, a Delaware <span>limited liability c<span>ompany</span>, </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendants-Appellees. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division II </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE <span>JOHNSON</span> </div>
<div>Fox<span> and Schock, JJ., concur </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced September 19, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Allen Vellone Wolf Helfrich &amp; Factor P.C., Patrick D. Vellone, Matthew M. <span>Wolf, </span>
</div>
<div>Vandana S. <span>Koelsch</span>, Jordan Factor, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Lewis <span>Roca</span> <span>Rothgerber Christie LLP, Kendra </span>N. Beckwith, Caitlin C. McHugh, </div>
<div>Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Plaintiff, TCPA Litigator List (plaintiff or the company), appeals </span>
</div>
<div>the district court’<span>s order granting summary judgment in favor of </span>
</div>
<div>defendants, Adam Young (Young); Tubmanburg Limited, a/k/<span></span>a </div>
<div>Ringba (Tubmanburg); and Ringba, LLC (collectively Ringba or </div>
<div>defendants<span>).  Plaintiff also appeals the court’s<span> two sanctions orders<span>.  </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>We<span> affirm. </span>
</div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>Michael <span>O’Hare</span> <span>(O’Hare)</span> created the plaintiff company in </span>
</div>
<div>March 2019.  <span>Plaintiff’s business model</span> compiles and tracks </div>
<div>telephone numbers of individuals who are likely to file lawsuits </div>
<div>under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act).<span>  </span>The </div>
<div>company has a subscription service that allows subscribers to </div>
<div>scrub their telephone lists <span>by</span> removing those names who,<span></span> if called </div>
<div>by the subscriber, may initiate a lawsuit.   </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>Young founded and is the current CEO of Ringba<span>.  </span></span>
</div>
<div>Tubmanburg was Ringba<span>’s owner</span> until January 1, 2021<span>.  </span>Ringba is </div>
<div>an inbound call tracking service<span>.  </span>In October 2019, Ringba began to </div>
<div>contemplate incorporating a scrubbing service that also include<span></span>d </div>
<div>names of those who might file <span>a </span>lawsuit under the Act.  <span></span>The product </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>would be an ancillary service to other analytic and tracking service<span></span>s </div>
<div>Ringba already provided.  To accomplish this, Ringba investigat<span></span>ed </div>
<div>the possibility of outsourcing this service<span>, </span>creating its own software<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>or purchasing an existing organization dedicated to this <span></span>service<span>.  </span>In </div>
<div>April 2020, Ringba was actively researching its options including </div>
<div>hiring a third-party consultant to develop a research strategy to </div>
<div>compile information.   </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>As part of its research, Young purchased a subscription with </span>
</div>
<div>plaintiff on April 5, 2020 and download<span>ed</span> <span>the company’s </span>Litigator </div>
<div>List (List)<span>.  </span>Five days later, an agent of Young<span>’</span>s contacted plaintiff to </div>
<div>discuss a possible acquisition of the company<span>.  </span>Plaintiff and </div>
<div>Tubmanburg, Ringba<span>’s owner</span> at the time, signed a mutual </div>
<div>nondisclosure agreement (NDA) related to the discussions on April </div>
<div>10, 2020.  Neither Young nor Ringba were signatories to the NDA.<span></span>  </div>
<div>After the discussions, Ringba offered to purchase the company for </div>
<div>$70,000<span>.  <span>Plaintiff rejected the offer and there were no further </span></span>
</div>
<div>negotiations<span>.  <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>In July 2020, Ringba launched its own scrubbing service </span>
</div>
<div>called TCPA Shield that incorporated many of the names from </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>plaintiff<span>’s </span>List<span>.  <span>After <span>O’Hare found out about TCPA Shield, </span>plaintiff </span></span>
</div>
<div>filed this lawsuit in October 2021<span>.  </span>The company alleged that </div>
<div>Ringba manipulated the <span>company’s</span> website <span>by</span> changing t<span></span>he date </div>
<div>range to enable Young to download the complete List and use the </div>
<div>“private information and proprietary listings” for Ringba’s own </div>
<div>product in violation of <span>the company’s </span>terms and conditions.   </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>Plaintiff asserted five claims for relief, with all except one </span>
</div>
<div>asserted against all defendants: (1) breach of contract (against </div>
<div>Tubmanburg); (2) unjust enrichment; (3) fraud; (4) civil <span></span>conspiracy; </div>
<div>and (5) violation of the Colorado Uniform Trade Secret<span></span>s Act.  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>Throughout the litigation, the parties had numerous disc<span></span>overy </span>
</div>
<div>disputes.  Plaintiff retained Jason Frankovitz (Frankovitz) as a </div>
<div>computer programmer and software expert.  Frank<span></span>ovitz opined in a </div>
<div>sworn declaration that Young downloaded the complete List by </div>
<div>bypassing the website interface <span>“through direct manipulation <span></span>of the </span>
</div>
<div>parameters in the URL” <span>because the web application had a date </span>
</div>
<div>restriction feature.<span>  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Ringba filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.<span>  </span></span>
</div>
<div>On May 8, 2023, the district court granted partial summary </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>judgment in favor of Ringba on all claims except the trade sec<span></span>rets </div>
<div>claim, concluding that <span>“there is just enough evidence for a jury <span></span>to </span>
</div>
<div>conclude that the list was a trade secret.”  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Before and after the court granted summary judgment,<span></span> there </span>
</div>
<div>were more discovery disputes.  Most of them involv<span>ed</span> Ringba<span>’s</span> </div>
<div>repeated efforts to obtain plaintiff<span>’s source code </span>for the website as it </div>
<div>existed on April 5, 2020, when Young downloaded the List.  To that<span></span> </div>
<div>end, Ringba fil<span>ed</span> two motions to compel and two motions for </div>
<div>sanctions, including the sanctions motion terminating the case. <span></span> </div>
<div>The court granted the motions following hearings that <span></span>revealed (1) <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>person could download the complete List from plaintiff<span>’s website</span> </div>
<div>without any manipulation of a date range restriction; (2) a pers<span></span>on </div>
<div>could download the List from plaintiff<span>’s website without having to </span>
</div>
<div>agree to the <span>company’s </span>terms and conditions<span>; </span>(3) plaintiff <span></span>withheld </div>
<div>documents that showed that Young had “permission” to download </div>
<div>the List; and (4<span>) </span>plaintiff possessed substantial portions of t<span></span>his </div>
<div>information throughout litigation<span>.  </span>As <span>a </span>result, the district court </div>
<div>terminated the case.<span>  </span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPUIHNHCLH&amp;Expires=1727521367&amp;Signature=nzqGkkYqU%2BzyIa%2Boyh%2F6dMxQAdg%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPr%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD1eCePmbvgNqRiHK052HkVSNxNZSqtiWMgR0ngy86R2QIhAPHXN4NZPqSLVm%2FpFPChw52B%2FSMnLUcKjfRZpsopTqfTKrEFCEMQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1Igw1zq7IkCM63DwHkSsqjgWm%2F1Ff4DjOiGmuRLjHbGpWRdki60Ittu%2BZoZjSeQWn5ewyzgO3dHQgF5wC3SwNwQJKvUZTiiw%2BDlOq8DGVAXZDQ4%2BMZ32iZWkHCksAHUWiQ48H7Bcgcjin2UJPOwNafnT9Q9WGDQ4FrMTLSuG%2B5x4QPcjHO6TNcLZqWNkPe3%2BcnII3c5iDuw6zawA81qYKLcuV1A3T1nNHJqQbi52sSWnKoivHYMwIESGTg6UX7l4FdcCpc4bqDA9oOH5%2Fm2gq0uLPIj0nTxKFa3OoFzv1faQygLrcN4dQ0Mmfyi3dbdyRPqlK29hmQuP8sLyzfUJhY%2FPFahWrKmygbVY5gLk4WAfI322cxFG9C1A6lP9UQpW8qE%2FPIzT64%2FA%2FSQv1ublxsqpgHXB78InPaGEh5XvwRn4eklS2DTWfY9PgxwpGVYoyeGNsiCV%2BseLfwgwNwaqydl3jlRWGU4PhMKXWu%2B2WeuqZRgaAHA%2F8TGNnZynR0bQUiD7WiE%2FyjcT4%2FEhrsaDBgvnzez0og9iTMtcT0Fy7Bx0i5NAJsiG9m8khiO7TQBLrRLYUU8I1PpvlRCKf%2Brmdbex29sHJNHyXtvriIGl964T%2Bz2mwCOjPisbVU9llvyJw4EaaMy8Wubn8Z2B3t2OhZ9VPwwALgpanpc0YhM3FXHOjY5CGW0XmTaDVyhpY5vEbXxWvM1DVzZdxIESZIS9d%2FIeOJ8p61%2BbxZPYykPzZqijYfvqLj1taRKu3b8Xf%2B9HMvHBKXuM6Vi%2FIjwYooNUWy8ouUvSNeCowDjiQLs5xvo3Lcgd8qf%2BGC2AIRmfxY17PzGC5vCswxtZpIwY9TSsYgrfjp6Rt844fbmo2ydv8w7h7Wbb9EaTBCOpKIQL279MwwJvftwY6sAFCCsHCc%2BNifWa5AeHMUTiWNG%2B3AwCYISLoyl%2F0mquCV%2FueH2OYTuws4AZRZL5K0LmK9YdtdC0Q8s2XCTjrILwWEfZ1WsCSdyT06kAGbG%2FVwd6X%2B9AZ4wgamw%2B5eSF9TiGlebggstQfN7wHTq4w1qFlf9j3UrHESxsSs1RB3XHqhOROXhEbWElg3xIqXBSynZfmo1xI0jsIps9snOt102ifhtAV5ziNg6TLpE4%2F3YME8Q%3D%3D"><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Plaintiff appeals contending that the district court (1) abused </span>
</div>
<div>its discretion by prohibiting Frankovitz from testifying and </div>
<div>terminating the action <span>as a </span>sanction and (2) erred by grant<span></span>ing </div>
<div>summary judgment on its claims for breach of contract and fraud.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Sanctions </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Plaintiff asserted two theories for its claims.  Both parties </span>
</div>
<div>retained experts <span>who</span> opined on the manipulation of website theory </div>
<div>and agreement to the terms and conditions theory.  As discuss<span></span>ed </div>
<div>above, plaintiff disclosed Frankovitz and defendants retained Dr. </div>
<div>Mark Gianturco (Gianturco).  Both experts were de<span></span>posed and both </div>
<div>were expected to testify at trial.   </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>Plaintiff contends that the district court abused its discreti<span></span>on </span>
</div>
<div>when it terminated the action for belated discovery prod<span></span>uctions that </div>
<div>were timely<span>, </span>cumulative of other evidence, and made available to </div>
<div>and declined inspection by Ringba.  We disagree.  </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> Plaintiff appeals the summary judgment order on the breach of </div>
<div>contract and fraud claims.  Because plaintiff does not reassert the </div>
<div>other claims on appeal, we deem them abandoned.  <span>See People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Osorio<span>, 

170 P.3d 796

, 801 (Colo. App. 2007).<span> </span></span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pf6" data-dest-detail='[6,"XYZ",69,148,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:669.772778px;bottom:752.010556px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Standard of Review and Applicable Law </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> <span>We review a district court’s imposition of sanctions unde<span></span>r </span></span>
</div>
<div>C.R.C.P. 37 for an abuse of discretion.  <span>Pinkstaff v. Black &amp; Decke<span></span>r </span>
</div>
<div>(U.S.) Inc.<span>, 

211 P.3d 698

, 702 (Colo. 2009).  A dist<span></span>rict court “abuses </span>
</div>
<div>its discretion if its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreas<span></span>onable, or </div>
<div>unfair,” <span>id.</span><span>, or a misapplication of the law, <span>Freedom Colo. Info., I<span></span>nc. </span></span>
</div>
<div>v. El Paso Cnty. Sheriff<span>’</span>s Dep<span>’</span><span>t</span><span>, 

196 P.3d 892

, 899 (Colo. <span></span>2008). </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>A party who fails to disclose information required by <span></span>C.R.C.P. </span>
</div>
<div>26 without “substantial justification” may be subject to sanctions. <span></span> </div>
<div>C.R.C.P. 37(c<span>)(</span>1).  C.R.C.P. 37 provides a variety of sanctions a </div>
<div>district court may impose for noncompliance with disclosure. <span></span> </div>
<div>Pinkstaff<span>, 211 P.3d at 702.  “Generally, sanctions under <span></span>C.R.C.P. 37 </span>
</div>
<div>‘should be applied in a manner that effectuates proportion<span></span>ality </div>
<div>between the sanction imposed and the culpability of <span></span>the disobedient </div>
<div>party.<span>’”  <span>Id. <span>(quoting </span>Kwik Way Stores, Inc. v. Caldwell<span>, 745 P.2d </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>672, 677 (Colo. 1987)).  The district court “must craft<span></span> an </div>
<div>appropriate sanction by considering the complete range of </div>
<div>sanctions and weighing the sanction in light of the full record in <span></span>the </div>
<div>case.”  <span>Nagy v. Dist. Ct.<span>, 

762 P.2d 158

, 161 (Colo. 1988).   </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> <span>Although district courts have “broad discretion” <span>in imposing </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>sanctions, it is not unbounded.  <span>Beeghly v. Mack</span>, 20 P.3d <span></span>610, 614 </div>
<div>(Colo. 2001).  The district court should “impose ‘<span>the least severe </span>
</div>
<div>sanction that will ensure there is full compliance with [its] discovery </div>
<div>orders<span>’” and is commensurate with the prejudice caused to the </span>
</div>
<div>opposing party.  <span>People v. Lee</span>, 

18 P.3d 192

, 197 (Colo. 20<span></span>01) </div>
<div>(quoting <span>People v. Cobb</span>, 

962 P.2d 944

, 949 (Colo. 1998)). </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>The harshest sanction a court can impose is dismissal of t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>case.  <span>Pinkstaff</span>, 211 P.3d at 703.  Dismissal <span>is</span> appropriate only in </div>
<div>the “extreme <span>circumstances,</span><span>”</span><span> <span>id.</span>, when there is </span>“willful or delibe<span></span>rate </div>
<div>disobedience of discovery rules, flagrant disregard of<span></span> a party’s </div>
<div>discovery obligations, or a substantial deviation from reasonabl<span></span>e </div>
<div>care in complying with those obligations,<span>” </span><span>Prefer v. PharmNet<span></span>Rx, </span>
</div>
<div>LLC<span>, 

18 P.3d 844

, 850 (Colo. App. 2000) (citing <span>Nagy</span>, 762 P.2d at </span>
</div>
<div>161)<span>. <span> <span>Compare</span> <span>Lewis v. J.C. Penney Co.</span>, 

841 P.2d 385

, 387 (Colo. </span></span>
</div>
<div>App. 1992) (holding that a failure to pay fees was not groun<span></span>ds for </div>
<div>dismissal where the failure was not willful or in bad faith),<span></span> <span>with</span> </div>
<div>Cornelius v. River Ridge Ranch Landowners Ass’n<span>, 

202 P.3d 564

, </span>
</div>
<div>571 (Colo. 2009) (Because “the nondisclosure in this case wa<span></span>s so </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>extensive that the parties and the water court had virtually n<span></span>o </div>
<div>specific information,” it merited dismissal of the case<span>.), <span>and Sheid v. </span></span>
</div>
<div>Hewlett Packard<span>, 

826 P.2d 396

, 399 (Colo. App. 199<span></span>1) (dismissal </span>
</div>
<div>appropriate where the plaintiff refused to comply with three orde<span></span>rs </div>
<div>directing the plaintiff to sign medical releases despite t<span></span>he tribunal’s </div>
<div>efforts to stay the proceedings pending compliance). </div>
<div>¶ 17<span> <span>The district court’s findings of fact and witness credibility </span></span>
</div>
<div>determinations may not be disturbed on appeal unless they <span></span>are </div>
<div>clearly erroneous and lack support in the record, and <span></span>we may not </div>
<div>substitute our own findings of fact for those of the trial co<span></span>urt.  </div>
<div>M.D.C./Wood, Inc. v. Mortimer<span>, 

866 P.2d 1380

, 1383-84 (Colo. </span>
</div>
<div>1994). </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>“Manipulation” of Website Evidence<span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> <span>Because we affirm the court’s termination of the case, we </span></span>
</div>
<div>could simply conclude that any error committed by the <span></span>court in its </div>
<div>first sanction order is harmless<span>.  </span><span>See</span> <span>C.A.R. 35(c) (“The appellate </span>
</div>
<div>court may disregard any error or defect not affecting t<span></span>he substantial </div>
<div>rights of the parties.”); <span>see also People in Interest of R.J.<span>, 2019 COA </span></span>
</div>
<div>109, ¶ 22 (noting that an error affects a substantial right<span></span> if it can be </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>said with fair assurance that it substantially influenced the </div>
<div>outcome of the case or impaired the basic fairness of <span></span>the trial itself).  </div>
<div>But the court’s <span>findings and analysis in the first order support t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>cumulative violations discussed in the second order. </div>
<div>1.<span> <span>The Court’s First Sanction Order<span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>Ringba sought termination of the case on March 31, 2023, </span>
</div>
<div>because it <span>needed the source code for plaintiff’s</span> reconstructed April </div>
<div>5, 2020 website for testing and because plaintiff untimely produced </div>
<div>a January 22, 2020 call (January 2020 call) that plaint<span></span>iff’s counsel </div>
<div>had in their possession since at least April 2022.  The January </div>
<div>2020 call was between O’Hare and Yevgeni Malosev (Mal<span></span>osev), a key </div>
<div>computer programmer who worked for the company.<span></span>  In it, <span>O’Hare </span>
</div>
<div>and Malosev discuss<span>ed</span> <span>the “non</span>-existence of any time constraints </div>
<div>to downloading the list,<span>”</span> <span>which rebutted plaintiff’s theory that<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>Young manipulated the website to obtain the complete List.  By t<span></span>he </div>
<div>time of the April 17 hearing, plaintiff had produced some of the </div>
<div>reconstructed website’s <span>source code that apparently allowed Rin<span></span>gba </span>
</div>
<div>to test it. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPUIHNHCLH&amp;Expires=1727521367&amp;Signature=nzqGkkYqU%2BzyIa%2Boyh%2F6dMxQAdg%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPr%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD1eCePmbvgNqRiHK052HkVSNxNZSqtiWMgR0ngy86R2QIhAPHXN4NZPqSLVm%2FpFPChw52B%2FSMnLUcKjfRZpsopTqfTKrEFCEMQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1Igw1zq7IkCM63DwHkSsqjgWm%2F1Ff4DjOiGmuRLjHbGpWRdki60Ittu%2BZoZjSeQWn5ewyzgO3dHQgF5wC3SwNwQJKvUZTiiw%2BDlOq8DGVAXZDQ4%2BMZ32iZWkHCksAHUWiQ48H7Bcgcjin2UJPOwNafnT9Q9WGDQ4FrMTLSuG%2B5x4QPcjHO6TNcLZqWNkPe3%2BcnII3c5iDuw6zawA81qYKLcuV1A3T1nNHJqQbi52sSWnKoivHYMwIESGTg6UX7l4FdcCpc4bqDA9oOH5%2Fm2gq0uLPIj0nTxKFa3OoFzv1faQygLrcN4dQ0Mmfyi3dbdyRPqlK29hmQuP8sLyzfUJhY%2FPFahWrKmygbVY5gLk4WAfI322cxFG9C1A6lP9UQpW8qE%2FPIzT64%2FA%2FSQv1ublxsqpgHXB78InPaGEh5XvwRn4eklS2DTWfY9PgxwpGVYoyeGNsiCV%2BseLfwgwNwaqydl3jlRWGU4PhMKXWu%2B2WeuqZRgaAHA%2F8TGNnZynR0bQUiD7WiE%2FyjcT4%2FEhrsaDBgvnzez0og9iTMtcT0Fy7Bx0i5NAJsiG9m8khiO7TQBLrRLYUU8I1PpvlRCKf%2Brmdbex29sHJNHyXtvriIGl964T%2Bz2mwCOjPisbVU9llvyJw4EaaMy8Wubn8Z2B3t2OhZ9VPwwALgpanpc0YhM3FXHOjY5CGW0XmTaDVyhpY5vEbXxWvM1DVzZdxIESZIS9d%2FIeOJ8p61%2BbxZPYykPzZqijYfvqLj1taRKu3b8Xf%2B9HMvHBKXuM6Vi%2FIjwYooNUWy8ouUvSNeCowDjiQLs5xvo3Lcgd8qf%2BGC2AIRmfxY17PzGC5vCswxtZpIwY9TSsYgrfjp6Rt844fbmo2ydv8w7h7Wbb9EaTBCOpKIQL279MwwJvftwY6sAFCCsHCc%2BNifWa5AeHMUTiWNG%2B3AwCYISLoyl%2F0mquCV%2FueH2OYTuws4AZRZL5K0LmK9YdtdC0Q8s2XCTjrILwWEfZ1WsCSdyT06kAGbG%2FVwd6X%2B9AZ4wgamw%2B5eSF9TiGlebggstQfN7wHTq4w1qFlf9j3UrHESxsSs1RB3XHqhOROXhEbWElg3xIqXBSynZfmo1xI0jsIps9snOt102ifhtAV5ziNg6TLpE4%2F3YME8Q%3D%3D"><div>
<div>10 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>At the April 17 discovery hearing, Gianturco and Malosev </span>
</div>
<div>conducted demonstrations of the website.  Gianturco demonstr<span></span>ated </div>
<div>that he was able to download the complete List without selecting </div>
<div>any date range, manipulating any parameters, or agreeing to any </div>
<div>terms and conditions.  Malosev performed his own demonstration of<span></span> </div>
<div>the reconstructed website.   </div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>In an April 25, 2023 order, the court declined to terminate the </span>
</div>
<div>case but prohibited plaintiff’s expert, Frankovitz, from <span></span>testifying at </div>
<div>trial.  The court found plaintiff’s first counsel and the agent<span></span> of </div>
<div>plaintiff’s first <span>counsel,</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> were grossly negligent in their explanations </div>
<div>as to why the January 2020 call was not produced to Ringba until </div>
<div>March 2023.   </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>It also found Frankovitz <span>“</span>reckless in pressing the argument </span>
</div>
<div>and opinion that Mr. Young manipulated the website t<span></span>o download </div>
<div>the entire list.”  The court laid out the timeline of events in <span></span>detail:<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> Plaintiff had two sets of counsel, the second entering their </div>
<div>appearances in December 2022.  The record does not include a </div>
<div>motion or notice indicating the withdrawal of plaintiff’s f<span></span>irst </div>
<div>counsel. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pfb" data-dest-detail='[11,"XYZ",69,148,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:289.455000px;bottom:500.032778px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div>11 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>In April 2022, O’Hare complied with his discovery </span></span>
</div>
<div>obligation and turned over about fifteen boxes of </div>
<div>materials to his then counsel, which included the </div>
<div>January 2020 call. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>In July 2022, Frankovitz was given access to the website </span></span>
</div>
<div>with a “basic subscriber” account, which was supposedly </div>
<div>what Young had used when he accessed the website to </div>
<div>manipulate and download the complete List. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>In October 2022, Frankovitz notified plaintiff that <span>he</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>could not replicate what Young had done because he </div>
<div>downloaded the complete List without any date </div>
<div>restriction and without manipulating the website.  </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Later in October 2022, Frankovitz was sent new access </span></span>
</div>
<div>credentials that enabled him to replicate the date </div>
<div>restriction. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Also <span>in</span> <span>October 2022, O’Hare sent an email to Frankovitz </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>with a copy of the January 2020 call, but he represented </div>
<div>in the body of the email that, despite the discussion in </div>
<div>the call, <span>Young’s “download was limited to 30 days</span><span>.<span>”</span></span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfd" data-page-no="d">
<div><div>
<div>12 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The day after Frankovitz received O’Hare’s email </span></span>
</div>
<div>Frankovitz issued his expert report opining that Young </div>
<div>had manipulated the website to gain access to the </div>
<div>complete List.  </div>
<div>•<span> <span>In January 2023, O’Hare testified at his deposition that<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>his “personal knowledge” of Young’s manipulation of the </div>
<div>website was based on Frankovitz’s report and a downloa<span></span>d </div>
<div>log that the court found showed nothing more than </div>
<div>Young conducting four downloads in four minutes. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>In March 2023, Malosev testified at his deposition that<span></span> he </span></span>
</div>
<div>was “mistaken” in thinking there were functional time </div>
<div>restrictions on the April 5, 2020 version of the website </div>
<div>but gave no explanation as to why he made that error. </div>
<div>¶ 23<span> <span>Based on these findings, the court concluded that “Mr. </span></span>
</div>
<div>Frankovitz, in forming his opinion, relied on <span>[O’Hare’s]</span> <span>‘memory’ </span>
</div>
<div>about the time restrictions that existed on the site on April 5, <span></span>2020.  </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfe" data-page-no="e">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPUIHNHCLH&amp;Expires=1727521367&amp;Signature=nzqGkkYqU%2BzyIa%2Boyh%2F6dMxQAdg%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPr%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD1eCePmbvgNqRiHK052HkVSNxNZSqtiWMgR0ngy86R2QIhAPHXN4NZPqSLVm%2FpFPChw52B%2FSMnLUcKjfRZpsopTqfTKrEFCEMQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1Igw1zq7IkCM63DwHkSsqjgWm%2F1Ff4DjOiGmuRLjHbGpWRdki60Ittu%2BZoZjSeQWn5ewyzgO3dHQgF5wC3SwNwQJKvUZTiiw%2BDlOq8DGVAXZDQ4%2BMZ32iZWkHCksAHUWiQ48H7Bcgcjin2UJPOwNafnT9Q9WGDQ4FrMTLSuG%2B5x4QPcjHO6TNcLZqWNkPe3%2BcnII3c5iDuw6zawA81qYKLcuV1A3T1nNHJqQbi52sSWnKoivHYMwIESGTg6UX7l4FdcCpc4bqDA9oOH5%2Fm2gq0uLPIj0nTxKFa3OoFzv1faQygLrcN4dQ0Mmfyi3dbdyRPqlK29hmQuP8sLyzfUJhY%2FPFahWrKmygbVY5gLk4WAfI322cxFG9C1A6lP9UQpW8qE%2FPIzT64%2FA%2FSQv1ublxsqpgHXB78InPaGEh5XvwRn4eklS2DTWfY9PgxwpGVYoyeGNsiCV%2BseLfwgwNwaqydl3jlRWGU4PhMKXWu%2B2WeuqZRgaAHA%2F8TGNnZynR0bQUiD7WiE%2FyjcT4%2FEhrsaDBgvnzez0og9iTMtcT0Fy7Bx0i5NAJsiG9m8khiO7TQBLrRLYUU8I1PpvlRCKf%2Brmdbex29sHJNHyXtvriIGl964T%2Bz2mwCOjPisbVU9llvyJw4EaaMy8Wubn8Z2B3t2OhZ9VPwwALgpanpc0YhM3FXHOjY5CGW0XmTaDVyhpY5vEbXxWvM1DVzZdxIESZIS9d%2FIeOJ8p61%2BbxZPYykPzZqijYfvqLj1taRKu3b8Xf%2B9HMvHBKXuM6Vi%2FIjwYooNUWy8ouUvSNeCowDjiQLs5xvo3Lcgd8qf%2BGC2AIRmfxY17PzGC5vCswxtZpIwY9TSsYgrfjp6Rt844fbmo2ydv8w7h7Wbb9EaTBCOpKIQL279MwwJvftwY6sAFCCsHCc%2BNifWa5AeHMUTiWNG%2B3AwCYISLoyl%2F0mquCV%2FueH2OYTuws4AZRZL5K0LmK9YdtdC0Q8s2XCTjrILwWEfZ1WsCSdyT06kAGbG%2FVwd6X%2B9AZ4wgamw%2B5eSF9TiGlebggstQfN7wHTq4w1qFlf9j3UrHESxsSs1RB3XHqhOROXhEbWElg3xIqXBSynZfmo1xI0jsIps9snOt102ifhtAV5ziNg6TLpE4%2F3YME8Q%3D%3D"><div>
<div>13 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Meanwhile <span>[O’Hare]</span> <span>testified that he has relied on Mr. Fran<span></span>kovitz’s </span>
</div>
<div>opinion in asserting that Mr. Young manipulated the website.”</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> <span>Given the computer demonstration and Frankovitz’s dou<span></span>bt </span></span>
</div>
<div>that he had access to the April 5, 2020 website for his t<span></span>ests, he </div>
<div>would “no longer be opining that Mr. Young manipulated t<span></span>he </div>
<div>website when he downloaded the entire list.”  In prohibiting<span></span> </div>
<div>Frankovitz from testifying altogether, though, the court reasoned, </div>
<div>“Mr. Frankovitz embraced his original opinion based <span></span>on not much </div>
<div>more than the word of plaintiff<span>’</span>s principal and primary soft<span></span>ware </div>
<div>programmer, Mr. Malosev.  I further find that he is now ab<span></span>andoning </div>
<div>this op<span>inion, again based on the word of these two men.<span></span>”  The court </span>
</div>
<div>also ordered that plaintiff could not make mention at trial of <span></span>the </div>
<div>April 5, 2020 website that plaintiff had reconstructed<span>, </span>both as a </div>
<div>sanction and because of its late disclosure<span>.  </span> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> The court erroneously referred to Young when, based on c<span></span>ontext, </div>
<div>it meant O’Hare.  Although plaintiff disputes the characterizati<span></span>on of </div>
<div>the testimony and actions, it does not dispute that the court me<span></span>ant </div>
<div>to refer to O’Hare.<span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pfe" data-dest-detail='[14,"XYZ",69,148,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:634.710556px;bottom:836.011667px;width:10.080000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div><div>
<div>14 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>2.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 25<span> <span>We conclude that the court’s <span>sanction was supported by </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>evidence in the record and not an abuse of discretion. </div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>Plaintiff raises four arguments contending the court abused it<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>discretion<span>: (1) O’Hare reasonably relied on his computer </span>
</div>
<div>programmer in asserting that the April 5, 2020 website h<span></span>ad a date </div>
<div>restriction component, and Frankovitz relied on other <span></span>information </div>
<div>besides the January 2020 call; (2) by early January 2023, the </div>
<div>parties had abandoned <span>plaintiff’s</span> website manipulation theory; (3) </div>
<div>the court had made findings that the delay in updating <span>Frankovit<span></span>z’s </span>
</div>
<div>opinion had been substantially justified, and Ringba was not </div>
<div>prejudiced; and (4) the court’s sanction was too extreme, as it<span></span> </div>
<div>should have allowed Frankovitz to testify to his modified opinion<span>.  </span>
</div>
<div>We are not persuaded by any of these arguments.   </div>
<div>¶ 27<span> <span>First, the court’s findings that Frankovitz relied solely on </span></span>
</div>
<div>O’Hare and Malosev for his manipulation opinion is supporte<span></span>d by </div>
<div>the mere fact that Frankovitz was so uncomfortable with <span></span>his </div>
<div>assertions, he withdrew his opinions on that basis.  Both <span></span>O’Hare </div>
<div>and Malosev testified at their depositions that the source code fo<span></span>r </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf10" data-page-no="10">
<div><div>
<div>15 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>the April 5, 2020 website “doesn’t exist,” <span>suggesting that Frankovitz </span>
</div>
<div>did not test the version of the website used by Young befo<span></span>re issuing </div>
<div>his opinion in October 2022.  And O’Hare’s reliance <span></span>on his key </div>
<div>programmer, no matter how reasonable, is flawed.  Plaintiff<span></span> still </div>
<div>does not account for how Malosev was mistaken when he said the<span></span>re </div>
<div>was a date restriction at the time Young accessed the April 5, 2<span></span>020 </div>
<div>website.  </div>
<div>¶ 28<span> </span><span>Second, the April 5, 2020 source code remained relev<span></span>ant to the </span>
</div>
<div>terms and conditions theory, even if plaintiff had abandoned it<span></span>s </div>
<div>manipulation theory.  At a January 2023 hearing, plaintiff’s coun<span></span>sel </div>
<div>said the manipulation evidence <span>“</span>shows motive, it shows intent<span></span>, it </div>
<div>shows what Mr. Young was really after,” to which the <span></span>court said, </div>
<div>“So, it’s totally relevant,” and plaintiff’s counsel responded </div>
<div>affirmatively.  Ringb<span>a’s counsel said the April 5, 2020 source c<span></span>ode </span>
</div>
<div>was relevant because “to input dates or not input dat<span>es and </span>
</div>
<div>download specific lists off of [<span>plaintiff’s</span>] <span>website” </span>would mean that </div>
<div>the <span>“glitch [</span><span>was</span><span>] due to Plaintiff’s error, not something t<span></span>hat <span>[was] <span>a </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>fault of Defendants<span>” and because Rin</span>gba did not improper<span>ly</span> access </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div><div>
<div>16 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>the information, then this evidence would go to whether the List </div>
<div>was a trade secret.   </div>
<div>¶ 29<span> </span><span>Third, even though the court made findings in an April 2, </span>
</div>
<div>2023 order <span>that plaintiff’s late disclosure of the April 5, <span></span>2020 </span>
</div>
<div>reconstructed website was substantially justifi<span>ed</span>, it was justified in </div>
<div>coming to the opposite conclusion in its April 23 order based on the </div>
<div>evidence and website demonstrations presented at the April 1<span></span>7 </div>
<div>hearing.  Between the late disclosures of the January 202<span></span>0 call and </div>
<div>Ringba expending attorney fees and resources on its ex<span></span>pert to </div>
<div>defend against Frankovitz’s withdrawn opinion, the court <span>did not </span>
</div>
<div>abuse its discretion finding that <span>plaintiff’s actions</span> had prejudice<span></span>d </div>
<div>Ringba.  <span>S<span>ee <span>Ranger Ins. Co. v. Dist. Ct.</span></span></span>, 

647 P.2d 1229

, 1231 (C<span></span>olo. </div>
<div>1982) (the court has the inherent authority to revisit<span></span> and reverse its </div>
<div>prior rulings). </div>
<div>¶ 30<span> </span><span>Finally, even though there is case law that supports an expert </span>
</div>
<div>being allowed to testify despite an erroneous opinion, given that </div>
<div>Frankovitz had already withdrawn a significant portion of <span></span>his </div>
<div>opinion and that the court had found that Frankovitz <span>and O’Hare</span> </div>
<div>were reckless in pursuing that opinion, <span>the court’s </span>sanction </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf12" data-page-no="12">
<div><div>
<div>17 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>foreclosing Frankovitz’s testimony<span> altogether was not an abuse of </span>
</div>
<div>discretion.  <span>Th</span>is is especially true when, as here, the reckless </div>
<div>finding was, in part, based on credibility assessments, to which we </div>
<div>are bound<span>.  </span><span>See</span> <span>M.D.C./Wood, Inc.</span>, 866 P.2d at 1383-<span>84</span>.  Thus, we </div>
<div>discern no abuse of discretion. </div>
<div>C.<span> <span>Termination of the Case </span></span>
</div>
<div>1.<span> <span>Additional Facts </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 31<span> </span><span>Af<span>ter issuing the April 25 order, the court held a status </span></span>
</div>
<div>conference on May 4.  Ringba again moved for sanctions <span></span>against </div>
<div>plaintiff for the late disclosure of documents showing Young had </div>
<div>permission to download the List.  The court ordered plaintiff <span></span>to </div>
<div>explain in writing its continued belated disclosure of documents.  <span></span>In </div>
<div>response to the court’s order, plaintiff filed an explanation,<span></span> which </div>
<div>attached additional unproduced screenshots of its w<span></span>eb application </div>
<div>and made new arguments related to those documents.   </div>
<div>¶ 32<span> <span>After plaintiff’s production of the screenshots, Ringba </span></span>
</div>
<div>requested another hearing, which was held on May 11.  At t<span></span>h<span>at</span> </div>
<div>hearing, O’Hare admitted that he and Malosev had <span>had access to </span>
</div>
<div>the original website’s backend source code<span> (different from the </span>
</div>
<div>source code it provided for testing of the reconstructed web<span></span>site) </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf13" data-page-no="13">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPUIHNHCLH&amp;Expires=1727521367&amp;Signature=nzqGkkYqU%2BzyIa%2Boyh%2F6dMxQAdg%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPr%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD1eCePmbvgNqRiHK052HkVSNxNZSqtiWMgR0ngy86R2QIhAPHXN4NZPqSLVm%2FpFPChw52B%2FSMnLUcKjfRZpsopTqfTKrEFCEMQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1Igw1zq7IkCM63DwHkSsqjgWm%2F1Ff4DjOiGmuRLjHbGpWRdki60Ittu%2BZoZjSeQWn5ewyzgO3dHQgF5wC3SwNwQJKvUZTiiw%2BDlOq8DGVAXZDQ4%2BMZ32iZWkHCksAHUWiQ48H7Bcgcjin2UJPOwNafnT9Q9WGDQ4FrMTLSuG%2B5x4QPcjHO6TNcLZqWNkPe3%2BcnII3c5iDuw6zawA81qYKLcuV1A3T1nNHJqQbi52sSWnKoivHYMwIESGTg6UX7l4FdcCpc4bqDA9oOH5%2Fm2gq0uLPIj0nTxKFa3OoFzv1faQygLrcN4dQ0Mmfyi3dbdyRPqlK29hmQuP8sLyzfUJhY%2FPFahWrKmygbVY5gLk4WAfI322cxFG9C1A6lP9UQpW8qE%2FPIzT64%2FA%2FSQv1ublxsqpgHXB78InPaGEh5XvwRn4eklS2DTWfY9PgxwpGVYoyeGNsiCV%2BseLfwgwNwaqydl3jlRWGU4PhMKXWu%2B2WeuqZRgaAHA%2F8TGNnZynR0bQUiD7WiE%2FyjcT4%2FEhrsaDBgvnzez0og9iTMtcT0Fy7Bx0i5NAJsiG9m8khiO7TQBLrRLYUU8I1PpvlRCKf%2Brmdbex29sHJNHyXtvriIGl964T%2Bz2mwCOjPisbVU9llvyJw4EaaMy8Wubn8Z2B3t2OhZ9VPwwALgpanpc0YhM3FXHOjY5CGW0XmTaDVyhpY5vEbXxWvM1DVzZdxIESZIS9d%2FIeOJ8p61%2BbxZPYykPzZqijYfvqLj1taRKu3b8Xf%2B9HMvHBKXuM6Vi%2FIjwYooNUWy8ouUvSNeCowDjiQLs5xvo3Lcgd8qf%2BGC2AIRmfxY17PzGC5vCswxtZpIwY9TSsYgrfjp6Rt844fbmo2ydv8w7h7Wbb9EaTBCOpKIQL279MwwJvftwY6sAFCCsHCc%2BNifWa5AeHMUTiWNG%2B3AwCYISLoyl%2F0mquCV%2FueH2OYTuws4AZRZL5K0LmK9YdtdC0Q8s2XCTjrILwWEfZ1WsCSdyT06kAGbG%2FVwd6X%2B9AZ4wgamw%2B5eSF9TiGlebggstQfN7wHTq4w1qFlf9j3UrHESxsSs1RB3XHqhOROXhEbWElg3xIqXBSynZfmo1xI0jsIps9snOt102ifhtAV5ziNg6TLpE4%2F3YME8Q%3D%3D"><div>
<div>18 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>since the start of litigation.  Gianturco testified that t<span></span>he screenshot </div>
<div>giving Young permission to download the L<span>ist was a “smoking g<span></span>un” </span>
</div>
<div>that would have “completely changed” his report and assi<span></span>sted in </div>
<div>developing his opinions.</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>The district court issued an order the </span>
</div>
<div>next day, May 12, terminating the case in its entirety.  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 33<span> </span><span>The court made extensive findings in its order as to why <span>it</span> </span>
</div>
<div>imposed the sanction to terminate the case.  It found that<span></span> based on </div>
<div>the testimony at the May 11 hearing and the newly disclosed </div>
<div>documents it reviewed, “plaintiff could no longer credibly cl<span></span>aim that </div>
<div>it had disclosed all relevant evidence in their possession.”  <span></span>It also </div>
<div>concluded that plaintiff was producing discovery in “drib<span></span>s and </div>
<div>drabs.”  And most <span>significant</span>, it found that O’Hare and Malosev<span></span>’s </div>
<div>violation of the discovery rules <span>was “an attempt to inc</span>rease thei<span></span>r </div>
<div>chances of prevailing at trial.”  The court acknowledged plaintif<span></span>f had </div>
<div>legitimate grievances with Ringba using plaintiff’s <span>L</span>ist for Ringba’s </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> Gianturco had opined that because of limited information </div>
<div>provided by plaintiff, the company could not prove that<span></span> Young </div>
<div>downloaded the complete List by manipulating the website.  The </div>
<div>new evidence ostensibly would have changed his opinion to a more </div>
<div>definitive stance that Young had not manipulated the website when </div>
<div>downloading the complete List. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf13" data-dest-detail='[19,"XYZ",69,181,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:299.856111px;bottom:752.010556px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf14" data-page-no="14">
<div><div>
<div>19 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>own product.  But, the court reasoned, plaintiff had an obligati<span></span>on </div>
<div>under law to produce all relevant information, “even if <span></span>that evidence </div>
<div>would help the other side,” and plaintiff had “until too late, </div>
<div>disregarded that law completely.”  As a result, it <span></span>terminated the </div>
<div>case.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>2.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 34<span> </span><span>We acknowledge that dismissal is the severest sanction a cou<span></span>rt </span>
</div>
<div>can impose, and therefore, as mentioned, it should be done only </div>
<div>“for willful or deliberate disobedience of discovery rules, <span></span>flagrant </div>
<div>disregard of a party<span>’</span>s discovery obligations, or a substantial </div>
<div>deviation from reasonable care in complying with those <span></span>obligations.”  </div>
<div>Prefer<span>, 18 P.3d at 850.  And while sanctions relating <span></span>to discovery </span>
</div>
<div>should be narrowly tailored to advance resolution of the <span></span>action on </div>
<div>the merits, “when faced with extensive nondisclos<span>ure and a </span>
</div>
<div>wholesale failure to prosecute a case, a trial court does n<span></span>ot abuse </div>
<div>its discretion in dismissing the action.”  <span>Pinkstaff</span><span>, 211 P.3d at 703. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 35<span> </span><span>Plaintiff contends the court erred <span>by</span> imposing the severest </span>
</div>
<div>sanction of dismissal because (1) the sanction is not supported by </div>
<div>clear and convincing evidence; (2) plaintiff produced all <span></span>relevant </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf15" data-page-no="15">
<div><div>
<div>20 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>source code; (3) the late productions were cumulative of alrea<span></span>dy </div>
<div>produced evidence; and (4) the “new” evidence was not a “smoking </div>
<div>gun” disproving plaintiff’s case.  We reject <span>them all. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 36<span> </span><span>First, plaintiff misstates the applicable standard of review.  </span>
</div>
<div>Plaintiff cites <span>Xyngular v. Schenkel</span>, 

890 F.3d 868

, 873<span>–</span>74 (10th Cir. </div>
<div>2018), <span>to contend that we review a court’s imposition <span></span>of a sanction </span>
</div>
<div>for clear and convincing evidence.  But we are not bound by <span></span>the </div>
<div>federal courts’ standard, <span>see Kovac v. Farmers Ins. Exch.<span>, 2017 COA </span></span>
</div>
<div>7M, ¶ 19, and our supreme court <span>—</span> to which we are bound <span>—</span> has </div>
<div>repeatedly reviewed discovery sanctions for an abuse of <span></span>discretion, </div>
<div>see Warden v. Exempla, Inc.<span>, 

2012 CO 74

, ¶ 17<span>.  F</span>inally, plaintiff </span>
</div>
<div>has not cited, nor are we aware of, any Colorado authority <span></span>imposing </div>
<div>a clear and convincing evidence standard to <span>a court’s imposition of </span>
</div>
<div>discovery sanctions.   </div>
<div>¶ 37<span> </span><span>Second, plaintiff<span>’s description of the technical </span>and complex </span>
</div>
<div>issues that arise when one party asks for the other side’s sourc<span></span>e </div>
<div>code, as discussed in <span>Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.</span>, No. C </div>
<div>11<span>-1846 LHK (PSG), 

2012 WL 1595784

 (N.D. Cal. May 4, <span></span>2012) </span>
</div>
<div>(unpublished order<span>),</span> may be accurate<span>.  B</span>ut in this circumstance, it </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf16" data-page-no="16">
<div><div>
<div>21 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>was not the technical issues (or entirely the technical issues) that </div>
<div>gave <span>rise to plaintiff’s nondisclosure.  The </span>court found that plaintiff<span></span> </div>
<div>had “ready access” to the information from the beginning <span></span>of the </div>
<div>litigation.  And it reasoned that <span>Ringba’s discovery requests </span>had </div>
<div>been <span>“broad” and “</span><span>all-</span><span>inclusive” so that </span>all information about <span></span>the </div>
<div>website should have been turned over.  At the May 11 hearing<span></span>, </div>
<div>Gianturco said that he had not seen information like metadata </div>
<div>tables, configuration files, and backend source code, which shoul<span></span>d </div>
<div>have been produced.<span>  </span>He explained that the source code for the </div>
<div>website is not sufficient to understand whether the rest<span></span>rictions </div>
<div>plaintiff claims it put on its website (i.e., <span>a </span>date restriction and </div>
<div>terms and condition agreement) were properly communicated t<span></span>o the </div>
<div>backend source code. </div>
<div>¶ 38<span> </span><span>Th<span>ird, the evidence was not cumulative of already p<span></span>roduced </span></span>
</div>
<div>evidence as there was (1) the previously discussed January 2<span></span>020 </div>
<div>call; (2) the failure to provide the version of the “plugins” used <span></span>by </div>
<div>plaintiff, as that would affect the functionality of the website at<span></span> the </div>
<div>time of April 5, 2020; and <span>(3) the “metadata tables and </span>
</div>
<div>configuration files” —<span> which some or all were never produced </span><span>—</span><span> </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf17" data-page-no="17">
<div><div>
<div>22 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>that would have been needed to generate the screenshots t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>Malosev provided and were discussed at the May 11 hearing<span>.  </span>And </div>
<div>the continual late disclosures dramatically affect<span>ed</span> the case, such </div>
<div>as the January 2020 call that was <span>so material that plaintiff<span></span>’s expert </span>
</div>
<div>withdrew a significant portion of his opinion or th<span>e </span>screenshots </div>
<div>evidencing that Young had permission to download the List.  Such </div>
<div>dramatic effects on the course of litigation cannot be conside<span></span>red </div>
<div>cumulative of evidence that had already been produced. </div>
<div>¶ 39<span> </span><span>Finally, plaintiff contends that the court abused its discreti<span></span>on </span>
</div>
<div>terminating the case because the belated disclosures, <span></span>such as the </div>
<div>screenshots, were not a “smoking gun” disproving that Young c<span></span>ould </div>
<div>not have downloaded the List from the website without agreeing <span></span>to </div>
<div>the terms and conditions.  But plaintiff’s contention misses the </div>
<div>point.  Discovery sanctions under C.R.C.P. 37 do not require a </div>
<div>finding that plaintiff would have not prevailed on the merits<span>.  </span>
</div>
<div>Instead, the rules are intended to keep parties honest <span></span>so that as </div>
<div>much relevant evidence as possible is part of coming to a resolution </div>
<div>of the dispute on the merits.  The May 11 order directly addressed </div>
<div>this point. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf18" data-page-no="18">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPUIHNHCLH&amp;Expires=1727521367&amp;Signature=nzqGkkYqU%2BzyIa%2Boyh%2F6dMxQAdg%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPr%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD1eCePmbvgNqRiHK052HkVSNxNZSqtiWMgR0ngy86R2QIhAPHXN4NZPqSLVm%2FpFPChw52B%2FSMnLUcKjfRZpsopTqfTKrEFCEMQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1Igw1zq7IkCM63DwHkSsqjgWm%2F1Ff4DjOiGmuRLjHbGpWRdki60Ittu%2BZoZjSeQWn5ewyzgO3dHQgF5wC3SwNwQJKvUZTiiw%2BDlOq8DGVAXZDQ4%2BMZ32iZWkHCksAHUWiQ48H7Bcgcjin2UJPOwNafnT9Q9WGDQ4FrMTLSuG%2B5x4QPcjHO6TNcLZqWNkPe3%2BcnII3c5iDuw6zawA81qYKLcuV1A3T1nNHJqQbi52sSWnKoivHYMwIESGTg6UX7l4FdcCpc4bqDA9oOH5%2Fm2gq0uLPIj0nTxKFa3OoFzv1faQygLrcN4dQ0Mmfyi3dbdyRPqlK29hmQuP8sLyzfUJhY%2FPFahWrKmygbVY5gLk4WAfI322cxFG9C1A6lP9UQpW8qE%2FPIzT64%2FA%2FSQv1ublxsqpgHXB78InPaGEh5XvwRn4eklS2DTWfY9PgxwpGVYoyeGNsiCV%2BseLfwgwNwaqydl3jlRWGU4PhMKXWu%2B2WeuqZRgaAHA%2F8TGNnZynR0bQUiD7WiE%2FyjcT4%2FEhrsaDBgvnzez0og9iTMtcT0Fy7Bx0i5NAJsiG9m8khiO7TQBLrRLYUU8I1PpvlRCKf%2Brmdbex29sHJNHyXtvriIGl964T%2Bz2mwCOjPisbVU9llvyJw4EaaMy8Wubn8Z2B3t2OhZ9VPwwALgpanpc0YhM3FXHOjY5CGW0XmTaDVyhpY5vEbXxWvM1DVzZdxIESZIS9d%2FIeOJ8p61%2BbxZPYykPzZqijYfvqLj1taRKu3b8Xf%2B9HMvHBKXuM6Vi%2FIjwYooNUWy8ouUvSNeCowDjiQLs5xvo3Lcgd8qf%2BGC2AIRmfxY17PzGC5vCswxtZpIwY9TSsYgrfjp6Rt844fbmo2ydv8w7h7Wbb9EaTBCOpKIQL279MwwJvftwY6sAFCCsHCc%2BNifWa5AeHMUTiWNG%2B3AwCYISLoyl%2F0mquCV%2FueH2OYTuws4AZRZL5K0LmK9YdtdC0Q8s2XCTjrILwWEfZ1WsCSdyT06kAGbG%2FVwd6X%2B9AZ4wgamw%2B5eSF9TiGlebggstQfN7wHTq4w1qFlf9j3UrHESxsSs1RB3XHqhOROXhEbWElg3xIqXBSynZfmo1xI0jsIps9snOt102ifhtAV5ziNg6TLpE4%2F3YME8Q%3D%3D"><div>
<div>23 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>¶ 40<span> <span>The court had already found plaintiff’s first counsel grossly </span></span>
</div>
<div>negligent for failing to disclose the January 2020 call and <span></span>had also </div>
<div>found O’Hare and Frankovitz reckless for opining that<span></span> the date </div>
<div>restriction was in place and that Young manipulated the website on </div>
<div>April 5, 2020, without verification.<span>  </span>The court reasoned, though, </div>
<div>that the completely nondisclosed material or belated productions </div>
<div>were <span>often helpful to Ringba’s defense or could have significant<span></span>ly </span>
</div>
<div>narrowed the scope of the litigation, there<span>by</span> avoiding t<span></span>ime, </div>
<div>resources, and attorney fees.  The district court sanctioned plaintiff </div>
<div>for late disclosures not once but twice because it found that plaint<span></span>iff </div>
<div>had “ready access to all sorts of data directly relevant to t<span></span>his case” </div>
<div>and that “Mr. O’<span>Hare and Mr. Malosev completely disregarde<span></span>d their </span>
</div>
<div>legally required discovery obligations until just recently in <span></span>an </div>
<div>attempt to increase their chances of prevailing at trial.”  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 41<span> </span><span>Therefore, on this record, we cannot say the court abuse<span></span>d its </span>
</div>
<div>discretion by terminating plaintiff’s case.</div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div>  </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div> We acknowledge that plaintiff did not fail completely t<span></span>o prosecute </div>
<div>its case, which was part of the facts giving rise to the supreme c<span></span>ourt </div>
<div>affirming the dismissal in <span>Cornelius v. River Ridge Ranch </span>
</div>
<div>Landowners Ass’n<span>, 

202 P.3d 564

, 571 (Colo. 2009).  But here, </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf18" data-dest-detail='[24,"XYZ",69,165,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:445.803889px;bottom:248.055000px;width:10.080000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf19" data-page-no="19">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPUIHNHCLH&amp;Expires=1727521367&amp;Signature=I%2BbFNFwQJHoPI6YkwpN4n8224Gs%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPr%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQD1eCePmbvgNqRiHK052HkVSNxNZSqtiWMgR0ngy86R2QIhAPHXN4NZPqSLVm%2FpFPChw52B%2FSMnLUcKjfRZpsopTqfTKrEFCEMQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1Igw1zq7IkCM63DwHkSsqjgWm%2F1Ff4DjOiGmuRLjHbGpWRdki60Ittu%2BZoZjSeQWn5ewyzgO3dHQgF5wC3SwNwQJKvUZTiiw%2BDlOq8DGVAXZDQ4%2BMZ32iZWkHCksAHUWiQ48H7Bcgcjin2UJPOwNafnT9Q9WGDQ4FrMTLSuG%2B5x4QPcjHO6TNcLZqWNkPe3%2BcnII3c5iDuw6zawA81qYKLcuV1A3T1nNHJqQbi52sSWnKoivHYMwIESGTg6UX7l4FdcCpc4bqDA9oOH5%2Fm2gq0uLPIj0nTxKFa3OoFzv1faQygLrcN4dQ0Mmfyi3dbdyRPqlK29hmQuP8sLyzfUJhY%2FPFahWrKmygbVY5gLk4WAfI322cxFG9C1A6lP9UQpW8qE%2FPIzT64%2FA%2FSQv1ublxsqpgHXB78InPaGEh5XvwRn4eklS2DTWfY9PgxwpGVYoyeGNsiCV%2BseLfwgwNwaqydl3jlRWGU4PhMKXWu%2B2WeuqZRgaAHA%2F8TGNnZynR0bQUiD7WiE%2FyjcT4%2FEhrsaDBgvnzez0og9iTMtcT0Fy7Bx0i5NAJsiG9m8khiO7TQBLrRLYUU8I1PpvlRCKf%2Brmdbex29sHJNHyXtvriIGl964T%2Bz2mwCOjPisbVU9llvyJw4EaaMy8Wubn8Z2B3t2OhZ9VPwwALgpanpc0YhM3FXHOjY5CGW0XmTaDVyhpY5vEbXxWvM1DVzZdxIESZIS9d%2FIeOJ8p61%2BbxZPYykPzZqijYfvqLj1taRKu3b8Xf%2B9HMvHBKXuM6Vi%2FIjwYooNUWy8ouUvSNeCowDjiQLs5xvo3Lcgd8qf%2BGC2AIRmfxY17PzGC5vCswxtZpIwY9TSsYgrfjp6Rt844fbmo2ydv8w7h7Wbb9EaTBCOpKIQL279MwwJvftwY6sAFCCsHCc%2BNifWa5AeHMUTiWNG%2B3AwCYISLoyl%2F0mquCV%2FueH2OYTuws4AZRZL5K0LmK9YdtdC0Q8s2XCTjrILwWEfZ1WsCSdyT06kAGbG%2FVwd6X%2B9AZ4wgamw%2B5eSF9TiGlebggstQfN7wHTq4w1qFlf9j3UrHESxsSs1RB3XHqhOROXhEbWElg3xIqXBSynZfmo1xI0jsIps9snOt102ifhtAV5ziNg6TLpE4%2F3YME8Q%3D%3D"><div>
<div>24 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Summary Judgment </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 42<span> </span><span>Plaintiff contends that the district court erred by granting </span>
</div>
<div>summary judgment because (1) genuine issues of material fact </div>
<div>existed as to its breach of contract claim, and (2) the economic loss </div>
<div>rule did not bar its fraudulent misrepresentation claim<span>.  </span>Even if the </div>
<div>court erred in granting summary judgment <span>in Ringba’s favor </span>on </div>
<div>both claims, the sanction order terminating the case renders any </div>
<div>error harmless. </div>
<div>¶ 43<span> </span><span>There is no reason to believe that the court would have </span>
</div>
<div>decided against terminating the whole case if th<span>ese</span> two claims we<span></span>re </div>
<div>pending at the time of the May 11 hearing and May 12 order<span>.  </span>The </div>
<div>court’s findings <span>that </span>plaintiff and plaintiff’s agents<span> were reckless<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>along with the findings of gross negligence of plaintiff’s first <span></span>counsel<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>the continual discovery violations, and the materiality of the </div>
<div>nondisclosed information or belated productions were just as </div>
<div>relevant to the breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresent<span></span>ation </div>
<div>claims<span>.  <span>Plaintiff has provided no rationale for why the court woul<span></span>d </span></span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>where discovery was material and rebutted the very theories </div>
<div>plaintiff asserted, prosecuting the case without full disclosure can </div>
<div>be just as harmful as failing to prosecute the case. </div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf1a" data-page-no="1a">
<div><div>
<div>25 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>not have also terminated these claims as part of its May 12 orde<span></span>r </div>
<div>given the state of the record<span>.  </span>Accordingly, even assuming the court </div>
<div>erred <span>by</span> granting summary judgment, any error was harmless.  <span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Stokes v. Denver Newspaper Agency, LLP<span>, 

159 P.3d 691

, 697 (<span></span>Colo. </span>
</div>
<div>App. 2006). </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Conclusion </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 44<span> </span><span>The judgment is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE FOX and JUDGE SCHOCK concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>

Case Details

Case Name: TCPA v. Young

Court Name: Colorado Court of Appeals

Date Published: Sep 19, 2024

Docket Number: 23CA0891

Court Abbreviation: Colo. Ct. App.