다스, 스위스검찰통해 백40억 환수

		     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168   Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:448


 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 9                          CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                  CV 04-2788 ABC (RCx)
11                                               CV 04-3386 ABC (RCx)
                            Plaintiff,           CV 05-3910 ABC (RCx)
12
                v.                               ORDER RE: MOTION FOR AN ORDER
13                                               OF CONTEMPT AGAINST DAS CORP.,
      REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 475               WILLIAM MILLS, AND JOHN
14    MARTIN LANE, et al.,                       KARACZYNSKI; MOTION FOR AN
                                                 ORDER OF CONTEMPT AGAINST ERIC
15                          Defendants.          HONIG, CHRISTOPHER KIM, AND
                                                 ALEXANDRIA INVESTMENT LLC; and
16                                               MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING
                                                 DAS TO DEPOSIT SUMS WITH THE
17                                               COURT
18

19
           Pending before the Court are four motions filed by Optional
20
     Capital Inc. (“Optional”).      This Order resolves the following three:
21
     Motion for an Order of Contempt Against DAS Corporation (“DAS”),
22
     William Mills (“Mills”) and John Karaczynski (“Karaczynski”) (docket
23
     no. 743); Motion for an Order of Contempt Against Eric Honig,
24
     Christopher Kim, and Alexandria Investment LLC (docket no. 742)
25
     (“Contempt Motions”); and Motion for an Order Compelling DAS to
26
     Deposit All Sums Obtained from Credit Suisse (docket no. 745) (“Motion
27
     to Compel”), filed on May 16, 2011.        All opposing parties filed
28
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168   Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:449


 1   Oppositions on May 23, 2011.      Optional filed Replies and, as to the

 2   motion for contempt against DAS and its counsel, Objections on May 31,

 3   2011.    DAS and Mills filed a Response to Optional’s objections on June

 4   7, 2011, in which Karaczynski joined and to which Optional filed an

 5   Objection on June 10, 2011.      The Court finds the Motions appropriate

 6   for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing

 7   set for June 20, 2011.     For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES

 8   the Motions.    The fourth motion, seeking to Compel Alexandria and

 9   Christopher Kim to Produce Bank Statements, remains on calendar.

10

11                                   I.   BACKGROUND

12           This Order assumes familiarity with the procedural and

13   substantive turns of this case.      As such, the Court will set forth

14   only as much background as is relevant to the disposition of this

15   Motion.

16           First, the Court will identify the parties.        The Kim Claimants,

17   including Christopher Kim (“Kim”) and Alexandria Investment LLC

18   (“Alexandria”), among others, are the persons against whom the

19   Government instituted the forfeiture action that started this case.

20   Eric Honig is counsel for the Kim Claimants in this action.             DAS

21   Corporation and Optional Capital were also claimants in the forfeiture

22   action; each contended that it was entitled to recover the forfeited

23   Kim assets because they were victims of fraud and other misdeeds the

24   Kim parties committed.     DAS also pursued claims arising out of the

25   same alleged misconduct against certain Kim Claimants in Los Angeles

26   County Superior Court and in Switzerland.         William Mills, an attorney

27   with the law firm Parker Shumaker Mills LLP, represents DAS in this

28   action.    John Karaczynski, an attorney with the law firm Akin Gump

                                            2
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168   Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:450


 1   Strauss Hauer & Feld, represented DAS in its state court action

 2   against the Kim parties and appears to have been involved in some

 3   capacity in DAS’s proceedings against the Kims in Swtizerland.

 4         This matter started out as a forfeiture case filed in May 2005 in

 5   which the United States sought the forfeiture of certain assets in

 6   possession of the Kim Claimants.       The Government seized various Kim

 7   assets located in the United States.        The Government also sought to

 8   forfeit two foreign bank accounts: an account in the name of

 9   Alexandria Investment LLC and another in the name of Erica Kim, both

10   held with Credit Suisse Bank in Geneva, Switzerland (the “Credit

11   Suisse accounts” or “accounts”).       To secure these accounts, the

12   Government, relying on the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (“MLAT

13   request”), asked Switzerland to freeze them.          The Swiss authorities

14   granted the request and froze the accounts pending this litigation

15   and/or its own investigation.      Both Optional and DAS filed claims to

16   the various Kim assets, including the Credit Suisse accounts.             DAS

17   claimed 14 billion Korean won, approximately $13 million.             DAS sought

18   to recover the same amount in its state court case against the Kims.

19         On April 17, 2007, DAS instituted separate criminal proceedings

20   in Switzerland against the Kim Claimants, seeking 14 billion won.

21   DAS’s Swiss complaint resulted in a second freeze order against the

22   Credit Suisse accounts.     In December 2008, DAS informed the Court and

23   the parties that it had initiated the Swiss proceedings and that the

24   accounts were subject to the second freeze order.

25         On March 13, 2007, the Court granted the Kim Claimants’ summary

26   judgment motion in the Government’s forfeiture case; the Ninth Circuit

27   affirmed that decision on October 3, 2008.         The Government’s

28   forfeiture case was therefore extinguished.          Following additional

                                            3
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168   Filed 06/17/11 Page 4 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:451


 1   litigation, the Court found that the other claimants’ – notably DAS

 2   and Optional – claims had also been adjudicated and were therefore

 3   extinguished.    The Ninth Circuit reversed and, by its mandate issued

 4   January 28, 2011, remanded the matter to this Court for it to

 5   adjudicate the competing claims of all claimants to the seized

 6   properties.

 7           On February 25, 2011, the Court scheduled a status conference and

 8   ordered the parties to submit a joint report before the conference.

 9   The preparation of the joint report was characteristically

10   contentious.    The Kim Claimants and DAS on one hand, and Optional on

11   the other, submitted separate reports in which they essentially talked

12   past each other; DAS did not contribute substantively to the report.

13   Because these efforts were not helpful, the Court continued the status

14   conference and ordered the parties to file a true joint report and

15   specifically identified topics the parties were to address.             Although

16   the Government’s case was over, the Court also ordered it to file a

17   report, as a friend of the Court, explaining what it knew about the

18   Credit Suisse accounts and the MLAT freeze.

19           On April 4, 2011, for reasons unexplained, DAS filed a Notice

20   withdrawing its claims in the forfeiture case.          On April 18, 2011, the

21   parties submitted their Joint Status Report and, on April 21, 2011,

22   Optional also filed a separate “Supplemental” Report.            The April 18,

23   2011 Report revealed why DAS withdrew its claims: it dropped its

24   criminal complaint against the Kims in Geneva, causing the Swiss

25   prosecutor to lift the freeze on the Credit Suisse accounts and to

26   order Credit Suisse to transfer 14 billion won from those accounts to

27   DAS.    DAS also dismissed its parallel state court case against the

28   Kims.    It was evident that DAS and the Kim Claimants had reached some

                                            4
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168    Filed 06/17/11 Page 5 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:452


 1   sort of settlement of DAS’s claims.

 2         At the status conference on May 2, 2011, the Court questioned

 3   DAS’s and the Kims’ counsel extensively to attempt to learn whether

 4   the transfer of funds from the Credit Suisse accounts to DAS was

 5   wrongful in any way.     See generally Status Conference Transcript,

 6   Rogari Decl. re: Kims Contempt Mot. Exh. F) (“Status Conf.”).              John

 7   Karaczynski, counsel for DAS in the state court case, stated that the

 8   transfer of funds was a result of a confidential settlement of DAS’s

 9   state court action, explained that DAS dropped its Swiss complaint and

10   obtained the funds through Swiss procedures, stated that the funds

11   were in fact transferred to DAS, and said that DAS would not surrender

12   the funds to the Court pending adjudication of the parties’ competing

13   claims in this case.

14         Optional argued that the DAS-Kims settlement was designed to

15   thwart this Court’s jurisdiction and deprive Optional of its

16   opportunity to pursue its claims.          Optional filed a number of motions

17   in response to the events in Switzerland, including the present

18   Contempt Motions and Motion to Compel.         In its Contempt Motions,

19   Optional contends that by so interfering with the Credit Suisse

20   accounts, DAS, its counsel, and the Kim claimants and their counsel

21   violated two Ninth Circuit mandates and two orders of this Court, and

22   should be held in contempt of court.         In its Motion to Compel,

23   Optional raises similar arguments and urges the Court to remedy DAS’s

24   misconduct and preserve the assets by ordering DAS to deposit with the

25   Clerk of Court the sums it obtained from the Credit Suisse accounts

26   pending the resolution of all claims in this case.

27   //

28   //

                                            5
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168   Filed 06/17/11 Page 6 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:453


 1                                  II.   DISCUSSION

 2         The Court will address Optional’s Contempt Motions first, and its

 3   Motion to Compel second.

 4   A.    Contempt Motions

 5         1.   Legal Standard for Contempt

 6         “[C]ontempt is a severe remedy, and should not be resorted to

 7   where there is a fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the

 8   defendant’s conduct.”     Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor,

 9   113 U.S. 609, 618 (1885).      A party seeking civil contempt sanctions

10   must prove “(1) that [the individual or entity] violated the court

11   order, (2) beyond substantial compliance, (3) not based on a good

12   faith and reasonable interpretation of the order, (4) by clear and

13   convincing evidence.”     Labor/Cmty. Strategy Center v. Los Angeles

14   County Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2009)
15   (citation omitted).     “[T]o support a contempt motion, the order
16   alleged to have been disobeyed must be sufficiently specific.”              Balla
17   v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 1989).
18   “If an injunction does not clearly describe prohibited or required
19   conduct, it is not enforceable by contempt.”          Gates v. Bertram, 98

20   F.3d 463, 468 (9th Cir. 1996).       A court may not hold a person in

21   contempt unless it finds that the party requesting the sanction has

22   proven contempt by clear and convincing evidence.           In re Dual-Deck

23   Video Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).

24         2.   Motion for Contempt Against DAS and its Counsel.

25         As the standard for contempt indicates, the threshold task is to

26   identify the allegedly-violated court order and determine whether it

27   is “sufficiently specific” to support a finding of contempt.             As

28   applied to this case, the question is whether any orders in this case

                                            6
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168    Filed 06/17/11 Page 7 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:454


 1   barred DAS, with the help of its attorneys, from obtaining the funds

 2   in the Credit Suisse account in the manner described.             Optional’s

 3   motion is well-argued and passionate, and identifies several orders

 4   that Optional claims DAS and its counsel violated.            However, the Court

 5   finds that none of the orders were sufficiently specific or clear to

 6   support a finding of contempt.      As such, the Court’s analysis begins –

 7   and ends – with the threshold question.

 8         First, Optional points to this Court’s December 31, 2008 minute

 9   order denying the Kim Claimants’ motion for an order directing the

10   Government to withdraw its MLAT request and regarding the maintenance

11   of the Credit Suisse accounts.      Optional contends that a clause that

12   reads “neither the Kim Claimants nor anyone else will withdraw the

13   funds until the Court orders otherwise” is an order that DAS and its

14   counsel violated.     (Mot. 3:13-16.)       However, Optional takes this

15   clause out of context.     The sentence reads in its entirety: “If the

16   Court takes no action at this point, that is exactly what will occur:

17   the funds will continue to the held by Credit Suisse, and neither the

18   Kim Claimants nor anyone else will withdraw the funds until the Court

19   orders otherwise.”     (12/31/2008 Minute Order.)        This sentence does not

20   constitute an order; rather, it is merely an observation that, under

21   the status quo at that time, no party could reach the assets.              Indeed,

22   the Court noted that it would not order the Government to withdraw the

23   MLAT request because to do so would be to relinquish the little

24   control the Court had over the funds.         The Court also invited the

25   parties to reach some agreement about the custody of the funds, such

26   as a stipulation to bring them to the Clerk to Court, but no

27   stipulation was ever submitted.      The bottom line of the December 31,

28   2008 order was that the Court would leave the status quo in place; the

                                             7
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168    Filed 06/17/11 Page 8 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:455


 1   spirit of that order was that the Court wanted to do what it could to

 2   maintain whatever little control over the funds it had.             But that does

 3   not constitute an actual order barring the conduct DAS undertook in

 4   Switzerland.

 5         Similarly, Optional contends that DAS’s conduct violated this

 6   Court’s November 3, 2009 order staying the final judgment pending

 7   appeal.   Optional does not elaborate on this argument.            It is hard to

 8   see how an order staying a judgment pending appeal constitutes an

 9   order prohibiting a party from doing anything but enforcing the stayed

10   judgment.    In addition, the judgment that was stayed was the Court’s

11   order releasing the funds to the Kim Claimants; that order was mooted

12   by the Ninth Circuit’s remand.      As such, when the funds were

13   transferred in February 2011, the stay order was no longer effective.

14   The stay order cannot support a finding of contempt.

15         Finally, Optional points to the two mandates in which the Ninth

16   Circuit explained that this Court retained in rem jurisdiction to

17   adjudicate claims to the assets, including the Credit Suisse accounts.

18   See Mot. 4:9-5:11.     But the Ninth Circuit did not issue any orders
19   directed at the parties’ conduct.          Rather, in each instance, it merely

20   elaborated on forfeiture law and ordered this Court to proceed in

21   light of that explanation.      If anything, the Ninth Circuit’s October

22   3, 2008 order acknowledged that this Court had in rem jurisdiction but

23   lacked actual control over the accounts, noting that “[f]or a court to

24   obtain jurisdiction, actual or constructive control over defendant

25   property located in a foreign country is not required.”             U.S. v. Real

26   Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, 298 Fed.Appx. 545, 551 (9th Cir.

27   2008).    Accordingly, none of the Ninth Circuit’s orders constitute an

28   order to any of the parties, and none supports a finding of contempt.

                                            8
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168    Filed 06/17/11 Page 9 of 15 Page ID
                                       #:456


 1         To be clear, and as was evident from the May 2 status conference,

 2   the Court is not endorsing DAS’s conduct that, in effect, bypassed

 3   this Court’s in rem jurisdiction over the Credit Suisse accounts.

 4   However, as has become apparent, this Court’s actual control over

 5   those assets was predicated on the MLAT request being in place and on

 6   the Swiss government’s honoring that request by freezing the accounts,

 7   a courtesy that the Swiss authorities revoked when the forfeiture case

 8   was terminated.    But the Swiss prosecutor instituted a separate freeze

 9   order to protect the funds, a freeze that resulted from DAS’s filing

10   its criminal case in Switzerland.          Optional was aware of DAS’s Swiss

11   proceedings, but apparently did not pursue a similar avenue itself.

12   Given the intent of the December 31, 2008 order, the Court would have

13   hoped – if not expected – DAS to return to this Court for

14   clarification regarding maintenance of the status quo as to the

15   accounts instead of collaborating with the Kims to secure a transfer

16   of the funds from the Kims to itself.         Had that happened, the Court

17   could have considered issuing an order barring any party from

18   disturbing the accounts, thus protecting the assets and ensuring all

19   parties would be on equal footing in pursuit of their claims in this

20   Court.   But that is not what DAS did.        Instead, DAS disregarded the

21   spirit of the December 31, 2008 minute order.           But the Court cannot

22   say that DAS violated the letter of any order issued by this Court.

23   DAS obtained the relief it sought from a legitimate authority that had

24   both jurisdiction and actual control over the accounts.             Simply

25   stated, no district or circuit court order expressly prohibited DAS

26   from doing that.    As such, the Motion for an order of contempt against

27   DAS, Mills, and Karaczynski is DENIED.

28

                                            9
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168 Filed 06/17/11 Page 10 of 15 Page ID
                                        #:457


 1         3.    Motion for Contempt Against Eric Honig, Christopher Kim, and
                 Alexandria Investment, LLC
 2
           Optional’s motion for contempt against Honig, Kim, and Alexandria
 3
      rests on many of the same grounds asserted against DAS and DAS’s
 4
      counsel.   Specifically, Optional contends that by settling with DAS,
 5
      which led to the transfer of funds, Christopher Kim and Alexandria
 6
      violated this Court’s December 31, 2008 minute order, its stay order,
 7
      and the two Ninth Circuit mandates.         Optional also contends that Honig
 8
      should be held in contempt for his involvement in the settlement, for
 9
      misleading the Court about what occurred in Switzerland, and for
10
      failing to keep the Court sufficiently informed.         But, as set out
11
      above, the Court finds that none of these orders was specific or
12
      definite enough to support a finding of contempt against Honig, Kim,
13
      or Alexandria.
14
           Optional raises an additional ground against Honig, contending
15
      that he knowingly misled the Court and intentionally suppressed
16
      material facts in violation of California Rules of Professional
17
      Conduct 5-200 and 5-220.
18
           Rule of Conduct 5-220 provides that “[a] member shall not
19
      suppress any evidence that the member or the member’s client has a
20
      legal obligation to reveal or produce.”        Optional contends that Honig
21
      violated this rule by not advising the Court of the DAS-Kims
22
      settlement, by not disclosing that 14 billion won were removed from
23
      the Credit Suisse accounts, and by not disclosing whatever he knew
24
      about how much money those accounts contained.         The Court has reviewed
25
      its various orders, especially the sequence of orders regarding the
26
      joint report and the status conference, and Honig’s submissions in
27
      response thereto, and finds that Honig timely made the minimal
28

                                             10
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168 Filed 06/17/11 Page 11 of 15 Page ID
                                        #:458


 1    disclosures he was legally required to make.

 2         To be sure, Honig was not forthcoming; he admits as much, arguing

 3    that the confidentiality clause of the DAS-Kims settlement barred him

 4    from affirmatively making such disclosures absent a court order.

 5    (Opp’n 7:7-8:4.)    The Court is not persuaded that the confidentiality

 6    clause barred counsel from affirmatively disclosing the existence of a

 7    settlement (as opposed to its contents), and as a practical matter, it

 8    was clear that the Court would eventually formulate the narrow

 9    questions that ultimately yielded the information it was seeking.

10    However, it is technically correct that Honig had no legal duty to

11    affirmatively disclose those facts, and that he eventually disclosed

12    them in response to the Court’s progressively more probing questions.

13         Rule of Conduct 5-200 provides in relevant part:

14               In presenting     a   matter     to   a   tribunal,   a
                 member:
15
                 (A)   Shall   employ,   for   the   purpose of
16                     maintaining the causes confided to the
                       member such means only as are consistent
17                     with truth;

18               (B)   Shall not seek to mislead the judge,
                       judicial officer, or jury by an artifice
19                     or false statement of fact or law.

20
           Again, the Court cannot find that Honig was not truthful, nor
21
      does it appear that he was misleading by artifice.           Rather, he chose
22
      to withhold information that, although relevant, he had no affirmative
23
      duty to disclose.    The motion to hold Honig in contempt is therefore
24
      DENIED.
25
      //
26
      //
27
      //
28

                                             11
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168 Filed 06/17/11 Page 12 of 15 Page ID
                                        #:459


 1    B.   Motion to Compel DAS to Deposit Sums with the Clerk of Court.

 2         Optional presents three grounds upon which its contends the Court

 3    can order DAS to deposit with the Clerk of Court the sums it obtained

 4    from the Credit Suisse accounts.

 5         First, Optional contends that such an order would be an

 6    appropriate response to DAS’s contemptuous behavior in obtaining those

 7    funds.   As discussed above, however, none of the Court’s orders can

 8    support a finding of contempt.

 9         Second, Optional contends that Rule G(7)(a) of the Supplemental

10    Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims grants the Court authority to

11    make such an order.     Rule 7(G)(a) reads:

12               When the government does not have actual
                 possession of the defendant property the
13               court, on motion or on its own, may enter any
                 order necessary to preserve the property, to
14               prevent its removal or encumbrance, or to
                 prevent its use in a criminal offense.
15
           This Rule appears to assume that, even if the government lacks
16
      possession of the property, the Court nevertheless has actual control
17
      over the property.     Indeed, a court could not make “any order
18
      necessary to preserve the property” without having some kind of
19
      control over that property.      As discussed above, this Court did not
20
      control the Credit Suisse accounts, and DAS obtained its 14 billion
21
      won through processes in Switzerland, the jurisdiction that did have
22
      actual control over the accounts.       Optional does not explain how Rule
23
      G(7)(a) allows a court to exercise control over property over which
24
      that court lacks control.      Optional also argues that the Court can
25
      exercise control over the property as a function of its personal
26
      jurisdiction over DAS.     Optional has not explained how this theory can
27
      be reconciled with DAS’s having obtained the assets by regular
28

                                             12
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168 Filed 06/17/11 Page 13 of 15 Page ID
                                        #:460


 1    procedures in Switzerland.      Thus, although Optional’s reliance on Rule

 2    G(7)(a) has some initial appeal, the Court cannot find that the Rule

 3    authorizes the order Optional seeks.

 4         Third, Optional argues that the Court can rely on its inherent

 5    authority to make such an order.       But this tenuous argument is an

 6    amalgam of Optional’s contempt of court and Rule 7(G)(a) arguments, as

 7    it rests on a determination that DAS abused the judicial process and

 8    on the existence of this Court’s control over the accounts and the

 9    assets they hold or held.      As discussed above, the Court cannot find

10    contempt (abuse of judicial process), and does not have such control

11    over the assets.    Indeed, the cases DAS relies upon all deal with

12    property in the United States and are simply not persuasive here,

13    where the accounts involved reside abroad and are not subject to the

14    Court’s control.

15         While a finding of contempt cannot be supported and while the

16    Court cannot compel DAS to surrender the funds, the events described

17    above and counsel’s explanations – occasionally quite technical, at

18    other times claiming ignorance – give the Court some pause as to

19    counsel’s judgment and credibility.         Specifically, the Court views

20    with some scepticism counsel’s disclaiming any meaningful knowledge of

21    the settlement (see, e.g., Mills Decl., and Status Conf. 16:12-24:24

22    (the Court questioning Honig)), and counsel’s suggestion that the

23    removal of 14 billion won from the Credit Suisse accounts is of no

24    consequence to this Court’s in rem jurisdiction, a claim that

25    supposedly excuses counsel’s failure to affirmatively disclose the

26    fact of the settlement and the subsequent disbursement of funds.

27    (See, e.g., DAS’s Opp’n 14:12-15:10, and Status Conf. 15:4-21 (the

28    Court questioning Karaczynski)).

                                             13
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168 Filed 06/17/11 Page 14 of 15 Page ID
                                        #:461


 1         Technically, as counsel repeatedly insist, the Court’s

 2    jurisdiction to decide the competing claims remains intact.           But by so

 3    diminishing the value of the res, the DAS-Kims conduct threatens to

 4    render any such decision a merely academic exercise.          It strains

 5    credulity for the DAS-Kim parties and their counsel to suggest they

 6    were oblivious to this consequence.         Similarly, that the DAS-Kim

 7    settlement contains a confidentiality clause is not an adequate

 8    explanation for any counsel’s failure to disclose the existence of the

 9    settlement.    Obviously, telling the Court that a settlement was

10    reached is far different from disclosing the contents of the

11    settlement.    The Court should not have had to ferret out information

12    so crucial to case management, especially because it was obvious that

13    DAS and the Kims would eventually have had to make the exact

14    disclosures they were withholding.       See Status Conf. 20:20-23:14 (the

15    Court questioning Honig, who acknowledges the information would have
16    come out eventually).     In short, although the conduct of counsel was
17    not contemptible, counsel should have acknowledged the common-sense
18    import of the various orders discussed herein.
19         Counsel also should have recognized, and the court believes they

20    did recognize, that this conduct – both their clients’ and their own –

21    would create intractable complications for this case and this Court.

22    Most attorneys practicing before this Court are forthright and assist

23    the Court in the objective we all strive for – the speedy and

24    efficient provision of justice.       See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 1

25    (stating “[These rules] should be construed and administered to secure

26    the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and

27    proceeding.”).    The conduct of counsel for DAS and the Kims, described

28    herein, was, regrettably, lacking such cooperation.

                                             14
     Case 2:05-cv-03910-ABC -PLA Document 168 Filed 06/17/11 Page 15 of 15 Page ID
                                        #:462


 1                                   III.   CONCLUSION

 2         For the foregoing reasons, the Motions are DENIED.

 3

 4         IT IS SO ORDERED.

 5    DATED:     June 17, 20011
                                              _______________________________
 6                                                   AUDREY B. COLLINS
                                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                             15