In their motion, Clinton and Thang argued that the delay in disclosing the settlement caused serious harm, including wasted resources spent defending against what they see as baseless claims. They also accused the estate of “malicious” actions to damage them financially and reputationally.
The estate countered by explaining that it had offered to produce the settlement agreement in October and ultimately complied with the court’s order to provide it in November, after Magistrate Judge David Grand ruled that both parties had to share their agreements related to the disputed recordings. The estate also pointed out that Clinton and Thang had not properly requested the settlement information and had ample opportunities to investigate it during depositions.
The estate further argued that Clinton and Thang’s claims of discovery abuse were exaggerated, and no real harm had been caused by the timing of the document’s disclosure. The defendants had already been able to question Boladian about the settlement, the estate noted, and they had failed to subpoena Westbound for the communications the estate believed were necessary for their case.
