Login NowClose 
Sign In to chronicle-tribune.com           
Forgot Password
or if you have not registered since 8/22/18
Click Here to Create an Account

Seybold's attorney sanctioned

BY Carolyn Muyskens - cmuyskens@chronicle-tribune.com

Chad Seybold's attorney P. Adam Davis will have to reimburse the City of Marion for some of its legal fees after Seybold failed to appear for a scheduled deposition in February.

On Friday Davis was ordered by Superior Court III Judge Warren Haas to pay $828 to cover expenses the city incurred when he cancelled Seybold's deposition two days before it was supposed to take place.

Davis is representing Seybold in the lawsuit over the failed former YMCA building renovation. London Witte Group LLC, First Farmer's Bank and Trust and the estate of Michael An are also named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Seybold had been scheduled to appear for a deposition at Davis's office on a Monday in February. The Saturday before the scheduled date, Davis cancelled the deposition in an email, saying the city had provided “woefully inadequate” information in discovery.

The judge found that Seybold's cancellation was “without good cause” and that Davis had directed his client not to appear for the deposition.

Davis has argued in past hearings and motions that the city has failed to provide information and that the city's witnesses have been instructed not to answer many of the questions in depositions. He's also said the city has not been specific enough in its allegations against his client.

“When you plead fraud, you're supposed to be specific with the who, what, when, where and how,” Seybold told the C-T earlier this year.

This is not the first time Seybold and his attorney have been sanctioned by the court. In June, Seybold was found in contempt for failing to turn over his electronic devices by the court-mandated deadline.

For that delay Seybold was charged $4,600 to reimburse the city for its legal fees.

The city's attorneys have argued the incidents are a strategy to delay the case.

“The City has already faced repeated delays in this case due to Mr. Seybold's failures to comply with the Court's discovery orders, for which Mr. Seybold has previously been found in contempt. Mr. Seybold's refusal to appear for his own deposition is merely the latest in a long string of attempts to obstruct and delay discovery and needlessly inflate the City's costs,” the city's motion to compel Seybold's attendance at deposition reads.