Intelsat USA Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
INTELSAT USA SALES LLC, :
:
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, : Civil Action No.: 10-2095 (RC)
:
v. : Re Document No.: 44
:
JUCH-TECH, INC., :
:
Defendant and Counter-Claimant. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DEFERRING A DECISION ON INTELSAT’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Intelsat USA Sales LLC (“Intelsat”), formerly known as
Intelsat USA Sales Corporation, brought suit against Defendant and Counter-Claimant Juch-
Tech, Inc. (“Juch-Tech”) alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment on the theory that
Juch-Tech refused to pay for services rendered after Intelsat performed all of its contractual
obligations. Juch-Tech filed original and amended counterclaims that included several counts,
many of which either were dismissed by stipulation or limited through this Court’s prior rulings.
Now before the Court is Intelsat’s motion seeking Rule 11 sanctions against Juch-Tech based on
certain allegations in those counterclaims. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will defer
ruling on Intelsat’s motion because Juch-Tech has failed to provide sufficient information from
which the Court can ascertain whether Rule 11 was violated. The Court therefore will order
Juch-Tech to submit an affidavit setting forth details regarding its pre-filing inquiry and
explaining the factual and evidentiary bases for the counterclaims and allegations that Intelsat
argues are in violation of Rule 11.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations 1
Intelsat and Juch-Tech are companies that operate in the satellite communications
industry. In 2005, the parties entered into a contractual agreement titled the Non-Exclusive
Service Agreement (“NESA”), see 1st Am. Compl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 3, under which Juch-Tech
leased satellite capacity from Intelsat on two satellites so that Juch-Tech could provide its
customers with communications services. See Am. Answer 1st Am. Compl. & Am. Countercls.
¶ 26, ECF No. 30. In early 2009, the parties entered into an additional agreement, the
“Transition Agreement,” see Am. Countercls. Ex. A, ECF No. 30-1, and a companion
agreement, “Service Order No. 22165,” under which Juch-Tech agreed to lease additional
satellite capacity from Intelsat in exchange for, among other things, Intelsat’s sale of a Linkstar
Hub and assignment of Intelsat’s contracts with certain customers who were using that satellite
capacity at the time. See Am. Answer 1st Am. Compl. & Am. Countercls. ¶¶ 27-28. Juch-Tech
was to lease capacity on Intelsat’s “IS-1R” satellite, which was already in orbit at the time, and
then transition to the “IS-14,” a satellite that would become operational several months later. See
id. ¶ 27.
Juch-Tech claims that it did not need the additional capacity for itself, but instead was
induced to enter the Transition Agreement and Service Order No. 22165 as a result of certain
representations about the value of the contracts Intelsat would assign. See id. ¶ 28. Juch-Tech
asserts that Intelsat, through its agents, represented that once customers on IS-1R were migrated
1
Intelsat previously filed two motions to dismiss, both of which the Court granted
in part and denied in part. The memorandum opinions accompanying the orders provide a more
detailed overview of the facts, which the Court incorporates by reference in this opinion. See
Intelsat USA Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2013) (ECF No. 22);
Intelsat USA Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc., No. CV 10-2095 (RC), 2014 WL 905323 (D.D.C.
Mar. 10, 2014) (ECF No. 82).
2
to IS-14, there would be little capacity left on the IS-14 satellite. See id. ¶ 54. Juch-Tech also
alleges that Intelsat provided Juch-Tech with a financial analysis of the contracts to be assigned
under the Transition Agreement, showing that the revenues from the contracts would exceed the
cost of Juch-Tech’s lease, resulting in a profit for Juch-Tech. See id. ¶ 56.
But Juch-Tech maintains that not everything was as it seemed. According to the
allegations in Juch-Tech’s amended counterclaim, Intelsat knew, but failed to disclose, that
certain customers were not paying their bills and would not renew their contracts, that other
customers had been complaining about poor service on the Linkstar Hub and IS-1R for some
time, and that still others were threatening to terminate their contracts altogether. See id. ¶ 59.
Juch-Tech, moreover, alleges that after the Transition Agreement was executed, Intelsat failed to
conduct the transition from IS-1R to IS-14 in a manner that minimized the disruption of service
and failed to correct other technical problems that made it difficult for Juch-Tech to serve
existing clients and obtain new customers. See id. ¶¶ 33, 42.
Juch-Tech then fell behind on its payments to Intelsat. See id. ¶ 34. The companies
entered a period of renegotiation between July and September of 2010, but Juch-Tech alleges
that during this period, Intelsat approached current and potential Juch-Tech customers in order to
convince them to abandon Juch-Tech and sign with Intelsat or another provider. See id. ¶¶ 35-
36. Juch-Tech alleges that some of the statements Intelsat made to these clients about Juch-Tech
were false and defamatory. See id. ¶ 47. The parties agree that their contractual relationship was
terminated in October 2010. See 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 8; Am. Answer 1st Am. Compl. & Am.
Countercls. ¶ 8.
3
B. Claims, Counterclaims, And Motions To Dismiss
Intelsat initiated litigation against Juch-Tech by filing a complaint for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment on the theory that Intelsat performed all of its contractual obligations but
Juch-Tech refused to pay for the services rendered. See generally 1st Am. Compl. Juch-Tech
filed its original counterclaim alleging eleven causes of action, ranging from breach of contract
under New York law to various torts under D.C. law to unfair competition under Canadian
trademark law. See generally Answer 1st Am. Compl. & Countercls., ECF No. 10. After the
Court granted in part and denied in part Intelsat’s motion to dismiss Juch-Tech’s original
counterclaim, see generally Intelsat USA Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc., 935 F. Supp. 2d 101
(D.D.C. 2013) (ECF No. 22), Juch-Tech, through new counsel, filed an amended counterclaim
that included seven counts, many of which were identical or nearly identical to those in the
original counterclaim: (1) breach of contract under New York law; (2) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York law; (3) fraud in the inducement under
D.C. law; (4) tortious interference with contractual relations under D.C. law; (5) tortious
interference with business relations under D.C. law; (6) defamation under D.C. law; and
(7) unfair competition under the Canadian Trademark Act. See generally Am. Answer 1st Am.
Compl. & Am. Countercls. By consent of the parties, Counts IV through VII have been
dismissed. See Stip., ECF No. 42 (Counts VI and VII); Min. Order, Dec. 13, 2013 (Counts IV
and V).
Intelsat filed a renewed motion to dismiss the remaining counts in the amended
counterclaim, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. See generally Intelsat USA
Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc., No. CV 10-2095 (RC), 2014 WL 905323 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2014)
(ECF No. 82). Specifically, the Court dismissed Juch-Tech’s breach of contract claim as to its
4
“assignment of customers” theory and Juch-Tech’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing as it related to Intelsat’s alleged misrepresentations about the
condition of the assigned contracts. The Court denied the remainder of Intelsat’s motion.
C. Intelsat’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions
Now before the Court is Intelsat’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Juch-Tech, its
counsel, and its counsel’s law firm. See generally Pl.’s Mot. Sanctions, ECF No. 44. Intelsat
asserts that Juch-Tech’s original counterclaim included several tort counts and related allegations
that were blatantly false and devoid of factual support. 2 See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions 2-
3, ECF No. 45. In May 2013, substitute counsel appeared on behalf of Juch-Tech and requested
an extension of time to file an amended counterclaim. See id. at 4. Counsel for Intelsat
responded with a letter to Juch-Tech’s new counsel, Mark Shaffer, suggesting a longer extension
of time so that he could fully investigate Juch-Tech’s counterclaim allegations before refiling;
Intelsat’s counsel also warned attorney Shaffer that many of Juch-Tech’s allegations, including
the original fraud, tortious interference, and defamation claims, were frivolous, not supported by
facts, and should be withdrawn. See id. at 4; id. Ex E (May 16, 2013 Letter from Bledsoe to
Shaffer).
On May 28, 2013, Juch-Tech filed an amended counterclaim that left intact most of the
original counterclaim’s allegations that Intelsat made misrepresentations about the profitability
of the customer contracts it was assigning to Juch-Tech, tortiously interfered with Juch-Tech’s
customers, and made defamatory statements about Juch-Tech. See generally Am. Answer 1st
Am. Compl. & Am. Countercls. Intelsat now argues through its Rule 11 motion that a
2
Because Juch-Tech’s first counsel is unavailable to comment on his investigation
before filing the original counterclaim, the Court finds that there is insufficient information
available for evaluating whether Rule 11 was violated. The Court therefore will focus on
Intelsat’s arguments regarding the amended counterclaim.
5
reasonable pre-filing inquiry would have revealed that Juch-Tech lacked the facts necessary for
establishing the essential elements of these claims. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions 18.
Intelsat’s specific arguments for sanctions are discussed below.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard For Rule 11 Sanctions
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), the Court may impose sanctions if “a
pleading, written motion, or other paper … [is] presented for any improper purpose[;]… the
claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are [un]warranted by existing law[;]… the
allegations and other factual contentions have [no] evidentiary support[; or] the denials of factual
contentions are [un]warranted on the evidence[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The Court applies
“an objective standard of reasonable inquiry on represented parties who sign papers or
pleadings.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns Enters., 498 U.S. 533, 554 (1991). Rule
11 is designed to insure that allegations made in a filing “are supported by a sufficient factual
predicate at the time that the claims are asserted.” City of Yonkers v. Otis Elevator Co., 106
F.R.D. 524, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). As such, it is “no answer to a motion seeking Rule 11
sanctions … to suggest that plaintiffs needed discovery to ascertain whether the claim asserted
was well founded.” Id.
The Court has “discretion to determine both whether a Rule 11 violation has occurred and
what sanctions should be imposed if there has been a violation.” Cobell v. Norton, 211 F.R.D. 7,
10 (D.D.C. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 11(c)(1) provides that if the Court
determines Rule 11(b) was violated, it may impose sanctions on “any attorney, law firm, or party
that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). “The sanction
should be imposed on the persons — whether attorneys … or parties — who have violated the
6
rule or may be determined to be responsible for the violation.” Id. Advisory Committee Note
(1993) (subdivisions (b) and (c)); see also Reynolds v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, 357 F. Supp.
2d 19, 23-24 (D.D.C. 2004) (“Parties and their counsel may be sanctioned by the Court for
violations of Rule 11.”). Finally, the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions is not something courts
take lightly; instead, Rule 11 sanctions are an extreme punishment for filing pleadings that
frustrate judicial proceedings. See Henok v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 926 F. Supp. 2d 100, 104
(D.D.C. 2013).
B. Intelsat’s Arguments For Sanctions
The critical question under Rule 11 is whether Juch-Tech undertook a reasonable
investigation into the factual bases for its amended counterclaim before submitting the filing to
the Court. See Bus. Guides, 498 U.S. at 554. In support of its motion, Intelsat sets forth several
arguments about when and how Juch-Tech violated Rule 11 through its counterclaim theories
and factual allegations that were not, and could not have been, based on a reasonable pre-filing
inquiry.
First, Intelsat cites Juch-Tech’s failure to provide written answers or documents to
interrogatory requests for evidence supporting the counterclaims. Intelsat argues that these
incomplete answers demonstrate that Juch-Tech never had a factual basis for making the
allegations, yet it did so anyway. For example, in Interrogatory No. 7, Intelsat asked:
Identify each actual or potential customer of Juch-Tech with whose contracts or
business relations Intelsat interfered as alleged in the Counterclaims, and describe
the specific acts, including the dates and participants in such acts, that constitute
the wrongful interference.
Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions 6. Juch-Tech responded by referring Intelsat to its own
communications with customers and stating that it could not provide more information at the
time but would supplement the response later:
7
Juch-Tech preliminarily refers Intelsat to all of its communications with [various
customers]. As it has advised counsel for Intelsat, Juch-Tech cannot give a more
complete, accurate, and professional answer to this Interrogatory until it
completes its ongoing document review. Thereafter, Juch-Tech intends to utilize
its option under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33(d) to answer this
Interrogatory.
Id. Juch-Tech provided a similar answer to several interrogatories targeting the evidentiary bases
for its counterclaim allegations. Intelsat argues that although discovery remains ongoing, Juch-
Tech’s responses came two years into the litigation, which is highly suggestive that no such
grounds ever existed to support Juch-Tech’s allegations.
Second, Intelsat argues that Juch-Tech asserts a fraud claim that misrepresents
indisputable facts to the Court. These misrepresentations come from Juch-Tech’s claims
premised on an email from Intelsat’s Alicia Schwarcz to Juch-Tech on March 12, 2009, which
included various attachments and information about customer contracts and billing. In the
amended counterclaim, Juch-Tech alleges that Intelsat fraudulently represented that “leasing
costs would be fully paid by Intelsat’s … assignment to Juch-Tech of certain customer contracts,
including the right of contract extensions and new contract negotiations” and “affirmatively
represented that the customer contracts that it would assign to Juch-Tech generated a revenue
stream … well in excess of the leasing fees for all the additional bandwidth and leave Juch-Tech
with substantial bandwidth to lease to third parties at a profit.” Am. Answer 1st Am. Compl.
& Am. Countercls. ¶ 28; Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions, Ex. B.
In its motion for sanctions, Intelsat argues that Juch-Tech did not attach the Schwarcz
email to the amended counterclaim because the email clearly demonstrates that Juch-Tech’s
fraud allegations are false. According to Intelsat, it made no guarantee, in this email or
elsewhere, about future revenue or that the transaction would even be profitable for Juch-Tech.
Rather, as Intelsat explains, the Schwarcz email “carefully and truthfully stated the termination
8
dates of the various contracts, five of which were month to month and could be terminated at any
time.” Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions 16. In addition, Intelsat points out that the Schwarcz
email indicated to Juch-Tech that several of the assigned contracts were due to expire within six
months, and thus any revenue flowing from those contracts would shortly cease if not extended
or renewed. See id. Indeed, according to Intelsat, the chart attached to the Schwarcz email
showed that one of the most profitable contracts was not being assigned to Juch-Tech, and as
such, even if every contract Intelsat assigned to Juch-Tech was renewed or extended at the end of
its term, Juch-Tech still would lose more than $35,000 per month by December 2009 unless
Juch-Tech found additional customers on its own. See id. at 17. The Schwarcz email therefore
did not make a promise about profitability to Juch-Tech; rather, Juch-Tech was provided with
accurate information about the contracts and warned that it needed to investigate them for itself
to determine their future status. See id. Despite these obvious facts, Intelsat argues, Juch-Tech
maintained fraud allegations in its amended counterclaim.
Third, Intelsat argues in its motion for sanctions that Juch-Tech’s tortious interference
allegations violated Rule 11. See id. at 20. In the amended counterclaim, Juch-Tech asserts
through multiple paragraphs that Intelsat intentionally made false or misleading statements to
customers in order to harm Juch-Tech. For example, Juch-Tech alleges:
Upon information and belief, Intelsat intentionally interfered with Juch-Tech’s
contracts with its customers by (a) inducing Juch-Tech’s customers to breach their
contracts by failing to pay Juch-Tech under their enforceable agreement; (b)
entering into agreements with Intelsat for bandwidth Juch-Tech was providing on
IS-1R; or (c) materially impairing or making impossible Juch- Tech’s ability to
serve its existing clients under their contracts by disparaging Juch-Tech’s business
capabilities and degrading the service Intelsat provided to Juch-Tech, which
caused Juch-Tech’s customers to decline to continue or renew their existing
contracts.
…
9
Intelsat made false and misleading statements regarding Juch-Tech’s financial
status and Juch-Tech’s relationship with Intelsat and degraded Intelsat service to
Juch-Tech which in turn degraded the service Juch-Tech was able to provide its
customers IS-1R and IS-14. By doing so, Intelsat caused existing Juch-Tech
customers to decline to extend existing contracts and/or ratify terms for new
contracts. Intelsat further prevented Juch-Tech from marketing its services to
and/or beginning business relationships with new customers.
Am. Answer 1st Am. Compl. & Am. Countercls. ¶¶ 69, 72. Juch-Tech further alleges that
“Intelsat’s motive for interfering with Juch-Tech’s business relationships was solely malicious,”
id. ¶ 74, and “Juch-Tech would have been able to renew its existing customer relationships and
acquire additional customers but for Intelsat’s wrongful conduct,” id. ¶ 73.
During discovery, Intelsat asked Juch-Tech through multiple interrogatories to (1)
identify actual or potential customers with whom Intelsat interfered; (2) identify facts or
documents supporting allegations that Intelsat induced customers to breach contracts or not
extend contracts with Juch-Tech; (3) describe the actions Intelsat allegedly took to commit the
interference; and (4) identify facts or documents showing that Intelsat acted with a malicious
motive. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Sanctions 22. Juch-Tech, however, was unable to provide
any documents supporting these critical aspects of its tortious interference theory, which
suggests that it lacked a pre-filing basis for the claim.
Similarly, Intelsat argues that Juch-Tech’s defamation theory underlying the tortious
interference counterclaim is without evidentiary support. Again, Juch-Tech failed to identify in
response to discovery requests potential witnesses or documents showing the alleged defamatory
or disparaging statements by Intelsat that could support Juch-Tech’s allegations. See id. at 23.
As Intelsat argues in its motion for Rule 11 sanctions, “Juch-Tech admits, under oath, it cannot
identify a single defamatory or disparaging statement that Intelsat made; that despite its
allegations of tortious interference, it cannot identify a single customer with whom Intelsat
10
tortiously interfered, or a single act of tortious interference that Intelsat committed.” Id. at 14
(emphasis in original).
C. Juch-Tech’s Response To Intelsat’s Arguments
Juch-Tech’s substitute counsel defends against Intelsat’s arguments by asserting that he
undertook a reasonable pre-filing inquiry before submitting the amended counterclaim. In
particular, attorney Shaffer suggests that when preparing the new counterclaim, he relied on
information from Juch-Tech’s management and staff, as well as interviews of third parties,
identifiable emails and documents within Juch-Tech’s possession, and an ancillary lawsuit
involving the performance of Intelsat’s Linkstar Hub. See Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Mot. Sanctions 7,
10, ECF No. 50. He further argues that this inquiry revealed “supporting documents and
sources” for the allegations in the amended counterclaim. See id. at 4. Juch-Tech’s counsel,
however, fails to provide any details about his pre-filing inquiry from which the Court might
evaluate whether Rule 11 was violated. For instance, he states that he relied on Juch-Tech
employees for information and reviewed documents, but he does not provide an affidavit with
specific information about what these employees said and how those statements supported the
various counterclaim allegations. See id. at 7-8.
In particular, Juch-Tech asserts that its pre-filing inquiry revealed actual and potential
customers with whom Intelsat tortiously interfered. See id. at 19. But Juch-Tech does not
provide information about who these customers are and what Intelsat said to them that might
constitute tortious interference. Instead, Juch-Tech defends its counterclaim allegations by
arguing that it is not asserting a defamation claim, but rather just that Intelsat made disparaging
comments to customers about Juch-Tech. See id. at 20-21. This response is insufficient and
misses the point.
11
Intelsat’s argument about how Juch-Tech violated Rule 11 has nothing to do with
whether Juch-Tech alleges defamation in the technical sense of the tort versus mere disparaging
statements. Rather, regardless of the description, the essence of Juch-Tech’s counterclaim theory
was that Intelsat made false and intentionally misleading statements to influence certain
customers, yet Juch-Tech continuously fails to provide evidence regarding the substance of those
alleged statements and to whom they were made. Juch-Tech could not provide these specifics in
response to multiple interrogatories, and it likewise failed to demonstrate through its
memorandum in opposition to Intelsat’s Rule 11 motion what, if anything, its pre-filing inquiry
revealed about Intelsat’s alleged statements to customers and the contracts with which Intelsat
allegedly interfered. The Court is left to surmise that either Juch-Tech is playing “hide the ball”
by failing to disclose information through discovery, or the factual support never existed and the
allegations were made in violation of Rule 11.
In response to Intelsat’s argument that Juch-Tech’s fraud claims were filed without
supporting evidence, Juch-Tech’s counsel states that the allegations were warranted due to pre-
filing interviews with Juch-Tech employees and his review of the Schwarcz emails on March 12
and 19, 2009. See id. at 14. Juch-Tech devotes much time in its opposition memorandum
restating information contained in these emails, see id. at 16, but it does not explain what
material facts were withheld by Intelsat or how those facts conflicted with the information set
forth in the emails and attachments such that they constitute false representations or material
omissions. And most importantly, Juch-Tech fails to address Intelsat’s argument that the March
19 Schwarcz email shows that Juch-Tech would actually lose money in the near future unless it
acquired new contracts because a large sum included in the billing chart was for an Intelsat
customer not being assigned to Juch-Tech under the Transition Agreement and whose payments
12
would end within nine months at the latest. In fact, this document seems to make clear that most
of the contracts actually being assigned were expiring soon or were month-to-month contracts
such that the customer could cancel at any time, which strongly contradicts Juch-Tech’s fraud
theory about guaranteed future revenue streams. Yet Juch-Tech does not respond to this critical
issue in its opposition memorandum.
D. Further Information Is Required
The Court is troubled by Juch-Tech’s failure to respond in detail to many of Intelsat’s
Rule 11 arguments such that the Court might assess whether a reasonable pre-filing inquiry was
conducted before the amended counterclaim was filed. General assertions, unsupported by
affidavits or other documentation, that Juch-Tech employees were interviewed and some
documents were reviewed do not clarify the scope of the pre-filing inquiry, whether that inquiry
actually revealed a sufficient evidentiary basis to support certain counterclaims and allegations,
or whether Rule 11 was violated by Juch-Tech and its counsel. See, e.g., Kingvision Pay-Per-
View Ltd. v. Ramierez, No. 05 CIV.2778, 2005 WL 178511, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2005)
(“[T]he failure to submit such an affidavit strongly suggests that no pre-filing inquiry was made
and consequently that no evidentiary support exists.” (citation, quotation, and internal alteration
omitted)). The fact that Juch-Tech’s discovery responses fail to reveal any evidence to support
its claims only aids Intelsat’s argument for sanctions. Indeed, counsel for Intelsat warned Juch-
Tech’s new counsel about the inaccuracies of the original counterclaim, but, based on the facts
available to the Court, it appears that counsel failed to heed this warning before hastily refiling
the counterclaim.
Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that it has discretion to determine if Rule 11 was
violated and, if so, what sanctions are appropriate. See Cobell v. Norton, 211 F.R.D. 7, 10
13
(D.D.C. 2002). The Court therefore will give Juch-Tech another opportunity to defend against
Rule 11 sanctions by submitting a detailed affidavit explaining with specificity its pre-filing
inquiry, including who was interviewed and what information they provided in support of the
counterclaim issues raised in Intelsat’s motion for sanctions. 3 For example, the Court expects
specific information regarding the disparaging statements Intelsat allegedly made to customers
and how those statements constitute tortious interference. The Court also expects an explanation
about the pre-filing factual support for the fraud and misrepresentation allegations based on the
promised revenue stream theory given that: most of the contracts were set to expire soon or were
month-to-month; Juch-Tech appears to mistakenly rely on the chart in the Schwarcz email which
includes a valuable contract not actually being assigned by Intelsat; and Schwarcz warned Juch-
Tech that it should investigate for itself the status of the contracts to clarify any discrepancies,
which suggests Juch-Tech may not have been reasonable to rely on this email in the first place.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court defers ruling on Intelsat’s motion for Rule 11
sanctions until it receives Juch-Tech’s supplemental response, which shall be due within thirty
days of issuance of this decision. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is
separately and contemporaneously issued.
Dated: July 2, 2014 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
3
In a footnote to its opposition memorandum, Juch-Tech’s counsel offers to
provide further information about its investigation through a sealed affidavit for in-camera
inspection only. See Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Mot. Sanctions 10 n.9. The Court recognizes Juch-
Tech’s concern about waiving the attorney-client and work-product privileges, so it will agree to
an in-camera inspection of a sealed affidavit insofar as any statements contained therein are
privileged and not subject to disclosure to Intelsat.
14