Defendants’ Motion (doc. # 46) is DENIED.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Affidavit Filed with Defendants’ Memorandum In Support of Motion for Relief From Judgments, or, In the Alternative, for Leave to File Sur-Reply Memorandum Instanter (Doc. # 57) is GRANTED as to the motion to strike
Mr. Cohn’s second affidavit and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply (Doc. # 57) is therefore DENIED AS MOOT.
That's it in a nutshell - the judge was not happy with Cohn:
All evidence before the Court supports an inference that Mr. Cohn was not without fault. Mr. Cohn states that he had no idea that the Court had issued various orders compelling defendants’ production of documents from October 31, 2002 through April 11, 2003.
Additionally, Mr. Cohn swears that he had no knowledge of Mr. Goodman’s actions or inactions in this case. Mr. Cohn further states that he was unaware that a default judgment was entered in the case against both himself and the corporation for which he is Chief Executive Officer, nor that a damages hearing was held after the default entry.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbing, is Mr. Cohn’s statement that he had no idea, from the time that Mr. Goodman represented Defendants in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas case filed December 3, 2001, until the time August 28, 2003, that Mr. Goodman was not licensed to practice in this Court. In fact, Mr. Cohn claims that until August 28, 2003 he was unaware of the July 1, 2003 Court Order barring Mr. Goodman from serving as counsel on this case.
The above facts, established by Mr. Cohn’s affidavit, can only be explained as Mr. Cohn’s "inadvertence, indifference, or careless disregard of consequences." Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 613, (1949). The facts of Mr. Cohn’s case are analogous to factual situations where courts have found that a defaulting party willfully chose not to conduct its litigation responsibly. |
