MCCARTNEY v. KIDS 2, INC.

                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
              FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

  TANYA McCARTNEY, ef al.,                  ) 
                     Plaintiffs, 
         VS.                                Civil Action No, 3:21-cv-166 
                                            )    Judge Stephanie L. Haines 
  KIDS 2 INC., ef al.,                      ) 
                    Defendants. 

                                  OPINION 
      On March 30, 2024, the Court was advised that Plaintiffs Tanya McCartney and Mark 
Montgomery III (“Plaintiffs”) settled their wrongful death products liability claims in this case 
against Defendant Kids 2 Inc. (“Defendant”) (ECF No.  104), and on May  17, 2023, the Court 
approved the  settlement  (ECF No.  123).   Though the  case  settled,  Defendant  still requested 
sanctions against Plaintiffs’ former attorney, Thomas Bosworth, based on Attorney Bosworth’s 
conduct at the depositions of Plaintiffs’ four experts, Drs. Mannen, Ross, Rosen, and Glancey.  At 
the May 2, 2023 oral argument on the sanctions issue, the Court found the imposition of monetary 
sanctions upon Attorney Bosworth was warranted and granted Defendant’s request for sanctions 
(ECF No.  116).  The Court directed Defendant to submit to the Court its fees and costs, and on 
May  17, 2023, Defendant filed its “Declaration of Jennifer L. Bullard Re Fees and Costs for 
Motion for Sanctions” (“Declaration”). 
     The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Declaration (ECF No.  124), Attorney Bosworth’s 
Brief and Correspondence in Opposition (ECF Nos. 125, 126), and Defendant’s Reply (ECF No.

127).!  For the reasons set forth below, the Court will award $19,713.50 as a monetary sanction 
against Attorney Bosworth. 
  I.  Relevant Procedural History 
     As to the procedural history relevant to Defendant’   request for sanctions, Defense counsel 
deposed Dr.  Mannen on November 8, 2022, Dr.  Ross  on November  15,  2022, Dr.  Rosen on 
November 16, 2022, and Dr. Glancey on November 17, 2022.  Defendant’s attorney, Alana Bassin, 
ultimately suspended the deposition of Dr.  Glancey to  seek court intervention.  According to 
Plaintiffs, on November 18, 2022, Attorney Bosworth was terminated from their firm, and thereby, 
ceased to represent the Plaintiffs. 
     On January 31, 2023, while Plaintiffs were still litigating their wrongful death product 
liability claims against Defendant, Defendant filed  a Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 69) and a 
Motion to Strike Improper Rebuttal Expert Testimony (ECF No. 70).  Plaintiffs filed an Omnibus 
Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 77) on February  15, 2023.  In their brief, Plaintiffs admitted the 
conduct during the four expert depositions by former counsel of record, Attorney Bosworth, was 
awful (ECF No. 77 at p.  1).  Plaintiffs offered to produce their expert witnesses to be deposed 
again as a demonstration of good faith and recognition of Attorney Bosworth’s actions.  Jd. at p. 
16). 
     The Court granted Attorney Bosworth leave to respond to these filings (ECF No. 94), and 

on March 23, 2023, Attorney Bosworth filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 
Sanctions and Reply in Opposition to Kline & Specter’s Response in Opposition to the Motion for 

'  Because these filings contain confidential, sensitive business information, as well as reference 
to personal medical information, the Court permitted the parties to file these documents under seal. 
On that same basis, the filings at ECF Nos. 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 100, 101, 102, and 103 were also 
filed under seal.  The Court’s analysis in this Opinion does not rely on or make reference to any 
confidential information.

Sanctions (ECF No. 99).  The Court was notified that the case settled on March 30, 2023, but 
Defendant maintained its request for monetary sanctions against Attorney Bosworth (ECF No. 
104).  On March 30, 2023, Defendant filed  a Reply (ECF No. 105) to Bosworth’s Response (ECF 
No. 99).  On the morning of May 2, 2023, before Attorney Bosworth appeared in Court for oral 
argument on this issue, Attorney Bosworth asked the Court for leave to file a reply to Defendant’s 
Reply (ECF No. 113), and the Court granted this request (ECF No. 114) and ordered the Reply to 
be docketed (ECF No. 115). 
      As previously stated, the Court held oral argument on the sanctions request on May 2, 
2023.  After the  conclusion of the oral  argument, the  Court granted Defendant’s request for 
sanctions and requested Defendant to submit a statement of the fees and costs it incurred because 
of Attorney Bosworth’s conduct.  On May 17, 2023, the Defendant filed its Declaration, indicating 
that it incurred $131,719.00 in fees as a result of Attorney Bosworth’s conduct.  On June 13, 2023, 
Attorney Bosworth filed a Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 125), and on May 20, 2023, he submitted 
correspondence to the  Court (ECF No.  126).  On June 22, 2023,  Defendant filed a Reply to 
Attorney Bosworth’s Brief in Opposition (ECF No. 127).  The issues relating to the imposition of 

monetary sanctions have been fully briefed. 
  II.  Legal Standard 
      Defendant has moved for sanctions under Rule 30, with reference to 28 U.S.C. §1927° and 
this Court’s inherent power to sanction an attorney.  Under Rule 30(c), all objections made at the 
time of the deposition should be noted, but “the examination shall proceed, with the testimony 
being taken subject to the objections.”  Rule 30(c).  Rule 30(d) provides that any objection during 

2 As Defendant did not submit any costs to the Court, the Court will not conduct an analysis as to 

28 U.S.C. §1927

.

a deposition is to be “stated concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner.” 
Rule 30(d)(1).  Moreover, a deponent may be instructed not to answer only when necessary to 
preserve  a privilege,  to  enforce  a limitation on evidence  directed by the  court,  or to  protect 
a witness from examination “being  conducted in bad faith or in such a manner as to  annoy, 
embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party.”  Rules 30(d)(1), 30(d)(3); see also Am. Fun & Toy 
Creators, Inc. v.  Gemmy Indus., Inc., 

1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12419

, *26-27, No. 96 Civ. 0799, 

1997 WL 482518

, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 1997). 
     A court may impose sanctions, including reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees, on a 

person who impedes or frustrates the fair examination of a deponent.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). 
“The decision to  impose sanctions  for discovery violations and any determination as to what 
sanctions  are  appropriate  are  matters  generally  entrusted  to  the  discretion  of  the  district 
court.” Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Lucas, Civil Action No. 19-40, 

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223323

, 
at *4 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2020) (quoting Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletics Ass'n, 

475 F.3d 524

, 
538 (3d Cir. 2007)).  “[D]epositions are to be limited to what they were and are intended to be: 
question-and-answer sessions between a lawyer and a witness aimed at uncovering the facts in a 
lawsuit.   When  a  deposition  becomes  something  other  than  that  because  of the  strategic 
interruptions,  suggestions,  statements,  and  arguments  of  counsel,  it  not  only  becomes 
unnecessarily long, but it ceases to serve the purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: to 
find and fix the truth.” Jd. quoting Hall v. Clifton Precision, a Div. Of Litton Sys., Inc., 

150 F.R.D. 525, 530-531

 (E.D. Pa. 1993). 
     The  Court  also  has  inherent  power  to  sanction  an  attorney.   Federal  courts  “retain 
the inherent power ‘to sanction errant attorneys financially both for contempt and for conduct not 
rising  to  the  level  of contempt.’”  In  re  Cendant  Corp.,  

260 F.3d 183, 199

  (3d  Cir.  2001)

(quoting Eash v.  Riggins Trucking, Inc., 

757 F.2d 557, 567

 (3d.  Cir.  1985)).  “This power, the 
Supreme Court has noted, is ‘governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested 
in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition ofa 
case.””   Rorrer  v.  Cleveland  Steel  Container,  

564 F. App’x 642, 644-45

  (3d  Cir.  2014) 
(quoting Link v.  Wabash R.R. Co., 

370 U.S. 626, 630-31

(1962)).  In arguing for an attorney’s fee, 
the  moving  party  bears  the  burden  of establishing  that  the  “request  for  attorney’s  fees  is 
reasonable.”  Rode v. Dellarciprete, 

892 F.2d 1177, 1183

 (3d Cir. 1990). 
   □□□    Analysis 
     Courts have ample discretion in determining what sanctions are appropriate and necessary 
to deter attorney misconduct.  Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 

475 F.3d 524

, 538 □□□ 
Cir. 2007).  Further, courts have wide latitude to determine whom sanctions should be directed 
toward: parties, law firms, or individual attorneys.  Jd.  Defendant clearly demonstrated it incurred 
significant expense as a result of Attorney Bosworth’s improper behavior, and the Court already 
granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Attorney Bosworth.  The Court now 
addresses its basis for imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $19,713.50. 
           A.  Deposition Conduct 
     As the Court stated at the May 2, 2023 oral argument, the deposition transcripts and video 
show  Attorney  Bosworth’s  conduct  was  grossly  in  violation  of the  Federal  Rules  of Civil 
Procedure  and  the  Pennsylvania  Professional  Rules  of Conduct.   Attorney  Bosworth  made 
countless improper objections, including repeatedly coaching his witnesses and testifying himself, 
and instructed his witnesses not to answer on more than two dozen instances.  Under Rule 30(c)(2), 
a “person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to 
enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).”  None of

these exceptions applied to Attorney Bosworth’s repeated instructions to his witnesses not to 

answer the questions posed by Defendant’s counsel, and his tactics prevented fair examination of 
Plaintiffs’ experts. 
     These objections and misconduct rendered the four expert depositions ineffective, and the 
Court agrees with Defendant that, had the case proceeded, Plaintiffs’ four expert witnesses would 
need to be deposed again as a result of Attorney Bosworth’s disruptive and unprofessional conduct. 
For example, here are several exchanges that occurred during the deposition of Dr. Rosen on 
November 16, 2022 that illustrate Attorney Bosworth’s disruption of Defendant’s counsel’s line 
of questioning: 
     Attorney Bassin: It’s never been asked and answered. It’s only been asked. 
     Attorney Bosworth: Yeah. You want to call them liars, but that’s fine. They didn’t lie. I 
     can’t wait to show them the forensic evidence you won’t show because you’ re  afraid of the 
     truth. 
     Attorney Bassin: Tom. 
     Attorney Bosworth: Afraid, afraid of the truth. I want it on — 

     Attorney Bassin: Tom, stop. Tom, you’re being belligerent. You’ re harassing. 
     Attorney Bosworth: No. Afraid. You are - 
     Attorney Bassin: Please keep whatever -- Tom, let me talk. 
     Attorney Bosworth: You are afraid of the truth. 
     Attorney Bassin: Tom, stop. 
     (ECF No. 82-4 at p. 28) 
     He OK 
     Attorney Bosworth: Hold on. Objection. He’s not going to answer it again. It’s harassing. 
     Next question. And, also, he’s not — 
     Attorney Bassin: Dr. Rosen, am I correct?

Attorney Bosworth: No, no, no. No, you’re not correct. 
Attorney Bassin: He hasn’t answered that question. 
Attorney Bosworth: Yes, he has. You’re not — you’re trying to get water out of a stone, 
and he’s  explained to  you.  I  don’t  know if you’re  not  understanding  it  or  if you’re 
intentionally — 
Attorney Bassin: Tom, stop with your objections. 
Attorney Bosworth: Knock it off now. 
Attorney Bassin: Tom, stop with your objections. 
Attorney Bosworth: Knock it off now. 
Attorney Bassin: It was actually a different question about the — 
Attorney Bosworth: Stop. 
Attorney Bassin: Actually it was a totally different question. I said she demonstrated how 
he was found. 
Attorney Bosworth: Your ethics are nonexistent. Your ethics are nonexistent. 
Attorney Bassin: No. I want to note for the record that my question to you -- Tom, stop 
talking. 
Attorney Bosworth: You have no sense of the truth. You have no obligation morally to 
tell the truth. You have no compass that seems to guide what is right and wrong.... 
3 ok ok 
Attorney Bassin: Tom, your objections are totally inappropriate. 
Attorney Bosworth: Ad nauseam. 
Attorney Bassin: Stop. 
Attorney Bosworth: Ad nauseam. Ad nauseam. 
(ECF No. 82-4 at p. 30). 
He oe

     Attorney Bosworth: I don’t think your intelligence is as low as your questions reflect, 
     which leads me to believe you’re trying to get answers you’ re not getting. It’s 12:20. I have 
     to go present a CLE on a record-breaking verdict. 
     Attorney Bassin: I’m going to finish this question before you go. 
     Attorney Bosworth: On a record-breaking verdict. 
     (ECF No. 82-4 at p. 34). 
     At  one  point,  Attorney  Bassin  sought  to  simply  clarify  that  Dr.  Rosen,  a  pediatric 
pulmonologist, would not be offering an expert opinion on warnings and was subjected to the 
following:                                  . 

     Attorney  Bassin:  Okay.  All  right.  All  right.  And  it’s  not  your  intent to  offer 
     testimony about warnings, correct? 
     Attorney Bosworth: I’m going to object to that — 
     Attorney Bassin: Since you’re not a warnings expert? 
     Attorney Bosworth:  -- on the same basis as you’ve stepped in it, Alana, as my 
     grandfather used to say. Like, you can’t -- you can’t -- you can’t take back what just 
     happened. 
     Attorney Bassin: Tom, I’m not taking back anything. 
     Attorney Bosworth: Yeah, you did. You went somewhere — 

     Attorney Bassin: I’m not taking back anything. I don’t think I stepped in it at all. 
     Attorney  Bosworth:  You  went  somewhere  and  you  got  slapped  in  the  face 
     theoretically. And I’m sorry that that hurt, but that’s his testimony. He’s going to 
     offer opinions based on what he said in this deposition that you have noticed and 
     what’s fairly within the scope of his report, as per the judge’s instructions. So he’s 
     not going to answer that question, but you can ask another one if you’d like. 
     Attorney Bassin: All right. I’m going to note for the record that you have instructed 
     him not to answer that question. 
    Attorney Bosworth: Yep, I have. Yes. 
(ECF No. 82-4 at p. 64).

     In another instance, Attorney Bassin tried to confirm whether Dr. Glancey had reviewed 
certain documents, referred to as  “QRB  documents”, however, Attorney Bosworth repeatedly 
became irate with her: 
     Attorney Bassin: Well, I’m looking at your report and it doesn’t list it, that you were 
     provided any QRB documents. 
     Attorney Bosworth: That’s a false statement. You’re making false statements about 
     his report. It says documents produced by Kids 2 in his report. Stop lying. Fourth 
     bullet. 
     Attorney Bassin: Stop coaching the witness. 
     Attorney Bosworth: Fourth — it’s not coaching. You’re a liar. You’re a  liar. 
     (ECF No. 82-2 at p. 67). 
     2K ok 
     Attorney Bassin: Therefore, those [QRB] documents would not have been taken 
     into consideration for your report, correct? 
     Attorney Bosworth: I’m objecting and he’s not gonna answer that question for the 
     same  reasons.  What  documents  are  you  referring  to?  You  keep  saying  those 
     documents wouldn’t have been taken. What documents? 
     Attorney  Bassin:  Any  QRB  documents.  He just  said I haven’t  seen  any  QRB 
     documents; and therefore, to the extent there are any QRB documents — 

     Attorney Bosworth: There are none. 
     Attorney Bassin: -- those documents were not taken into consideration — 

     Attorney Bosworth: There are none. 
     Attorney Bassin: -- for your opinions, correct? 
     Attorney Bosworth: There are none. You're a liar. There are none. You're lying. 
     Attorney Bassin: This is so inappropriate. 
     Attorney Shahidi: Tom, she’s asking him whether there are — 
     Attorney Bassin: It’s harassing. It’s insulting.

     Attorney Shahidi: -- whether he’s seen the document. 
     Attorney Bosworth: They don’t exist. 
     Attorney Shahidi: She can ask the question. 
     Attorney Bosworth: No. They’re not -- they don’t exist.  Stop. This is not gonna 
     happen. You all live in an alternate reality, you corporate schills. S-C-H-I-L-L. 
     Attorney Bassin: Okay. I’m gonna suspend the questioning on this. 
     Attorney Bosworth: You corporate schills. You’re gonna ask him — you’re gonna 
     ask him if this -- hey, did you see the -- the brochure of the Corvette? There’s no 
     Corvette brochure. What are you doing? 
     Attorney Shahidi: There’s no need to raise your voice, please. 
   ECF No. 82-2 at pp. 69-70. 
   After  Attorney  Bosworth  made  yet  another  speaking  objection  during  Dr.  Glancey’s 
deposition, the following exchange occurred: 
     Attorney Bassin: You know, you can’t do that at trial and you can’t do it now. 
     Attorney Bosworth: Oh, I'll do it then and now. 
     Attorney Bassin:  You simply can’t. You can object and that’s it. And here you 
     object to form and preserve your objection. Objection. I am telling you are acting 
     totally inappropriately. 
     Attorney Bosworth: No, ’m— 
     Attorney Bassin: So stop it, Tom. 
     Attorney Bosworth:  -- I’m asking you if you’re asking him about now or about 
     before. 
     Attorney Bassin:  You need to -- you need to -- honestly, you need to behave in the 
     same way that you would act in a court proceeding, and you are not doing that, Tom, 
     and you need to start. 
     Attorney Bosworth: Alana — 
     Attorney Bassin: Dr. Glancey — 

                                     10 

     Attorney Bosworth: -- you don’t -- I just have to get this on the record. I just have 
     to get it on the record. I've been — 
     Attorney Bassin: Okay. I — 
     Attorney Bosworth: I’ve been in many courtrooms before many judges before many 
     juries in my six years. I’ve never had an issue with a judge or a jury in how I conduct 
     myself, I represent my client zealously. I don’t take advice from corporate lawyers 
     on how I  ought to behave. The only person I  take instruction from in this world is 
     my wife and my parents. 
(ECF No. 82-2 at p. 30). 
     As  stated at the May 2, 2023  oral argument, the Court is particularly troubled by the 

numerous, vicious personal attacks that Attorney Bosworth made against Attorneys Bullard and 
Bassin.  Attorney Bosworth alternated between being rude, demeaning, and obnoxious, at times 
using a higher pitched, mocking tone to belittle the female defense counsel. For example, Attorney 
Bosworth made the following comments to Attorney Bassin during Dr. Rosen’s deposition: 
     Attorney Bosworth:  Alana, you are -- I have a concern for your mental health at 
     this time and I don’t mean that in a negative way. But I’m worried that you’re losing 
     it. And I don’t know why you’re acting this way, but it’s extremely concerning. 
     (ECF No. 82-4 at p. 13). 
     28 ok ok 
     Court Reporter: So just to remind you both, I cannot write two at once. Thank you. 
     Attorney Bosworth: I just want to say, for the record, I know, [court reporter], you keep 
     saying to remind you both, but I’m the one being interrupted and so is Dr. Rosen. It’s -- I 
     think that Alana thinks it’s like effective or something, but it’s kind of just like — who’s 
     that guy on the news who yells - who yelled at everyone? Was it Phil Murray? He would 
     yell at people and then say -- like, try to make points and it was -- yeah. So just, can you 
     just let everybody talk, Alana? I know you like the spotlight. 
     Id. at p. 19. 
     At the deposition of Dr. Glancey, the following exchange occurred: 

                                     11 

   Attorney Bosworth: I think it’s been asked and answered. I think you’re harassing. I 
   think you either don’t listen or you intentionally abuse people. But go ahead, Doctor. 
   Attorney Bassin: No, I didn’t. I just — 
   Attorney Bosworth:  Yeah, you -- no, you either — 
   Attorney Bassin: -- clarified my question about over 30 degrees. 
   Attorney Bosworth: You either have a hearing problem, a personality disorder, or a 
   comprehension problem. Go ahead, Doctor. 
   Attorney Bassin: Tom, I’m sorry. I need to get down for the record what you said. 
   You said I had a hearing problem, a something problem, or a comprehension problem? 
   What was the second insult? 
   Attorney Bosworth: I said you either have a hearing issue, a personality disorder, or 
    a comprehension issue. 
    (ECF No. 82-2 at p. 82). 
     These exchanges are in addition to the repeated instances when Attorney Bosworth berated 
and insulted the integrity of Attorneys Bassin and Bullard. (“You have an obligation to tell the 
truth.  I know that’s hard for you.....but maybe you haven’t dealt with lawyers like me that hold 
that to the fire.” (ECF No. 82-4 at p. 42); “You’re literally the most disingenuous lawyer I’ve ever 
encountered.” Id. at p. 44.; “You need to start aligning yourself with the truth... know that is hard 
for you.” Jd.;  “I’m trying to be patient with you, but you have no respect for the truth...the 
doctor...for our time...for what’s right and wrong...for opposing counsel.  And it’s not skill. 
Make no mistake about it.  I’ve dealt with your kind many atime.  And it’s easily exposable in a 
courtroom.” Jd. at p. 48.; “I have to conclude you're not listening. I have to. I can’t conclude 
anything else. But go ahead and continue.” Jd. at p. 51.; “You're either not listening to him or you 
just want to bill time.” (ECF No. 82-2 at p. 80); “You're just lying now.” (ECF No. 82-4 at p. 58)). 
     The quoted exchanges and insults are just examples of Attorney Bosworth’s misconduct 
that runs throughout all four of the expert deposition transcripts and videos. Attorney Bosworth’s 

                                     12 

speaking  objections  and  commentary  influenced  the  witnesses’  testimony,  prevented  fair 
examination of these witnesses, and as the Court already ruled at the May 2, 2023 oral argument, 
monetary sanctions against Attorney Bosworth for his misconduct are appropriate. 
           B.  Monetary Sanctions 
     “With regard to the hours worked, the Court must ‘review the time charged, decide whether 
the hours set out were reasonably expended for each of the particular purposes described and then 
exclude those that are  ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.’”  Gittins v.  Gateway 
Clipper Inc., Civ. 2:16-cv-00757, 

2021 WL 1232421

, at *14 (W.D. Pa. Mar.  12, 2021) (quoting 
Pub. Int. Rsch Grp.  of N.J., Inc., 51 F.3d at 1188).  The Court has reviewed each billing entry, 
including the nature of the service performed, the time spent in doing so, the timekeeper who 
performed the work and the hourly rates for each task. 
     Given  the  extreme  nature  of  Attorney  Bosworth’s  behavior,  Defendant  should  be 
reimbursed for the attorneys’ fees incurred for attending each deposition.  As the Court already 
stated  when  it  granted  Defendant’s  request  for  sanctions,  Attorney  Bosworth’s  behavior  to 
Attorneys Bullard and Bassin during the depositions was disrespectful and outrageous.  The Court 
fully reviewed both the transcripts and the video of the four expert depositions, and Attorney 
Bosworth’s disruptions were serious, pervasive and interfering.  His behavior and ad hominem 
attacks against Attorneys Bassin and Bullard were appalling.  As evidenced in the billing entries, 
Attorney  Bosworth’s  misconduct  required  them  to  not  only  have  both  attorneys  attend  the 
depositions, but to also have their local counsel, Attorney Yasha K. Shahidi, attend the depositions 
in person at the office of Plaintiffs counsel. 
     A reasonable fee award for imposition of sanctions is determined by multiplying counsel’s 
number  of  hours  reasonably  expended  (i.e.,  hours  that  are  not  excessive,  redundant,  or 

                                     13 

unnecessary)  times  counsel’s  reasonable  billing  rate  (i.e.,  a rate  which  does  not  exceed the 
prevailing market rates),  Keister v. PPL Corp., 

257 F. Supp. 3d 693, 701

 (M.D. Pa. 2016), aff'd, 

677 F. App’x 63

 (3d Cir. 2017).  “When considering whether rates charges are reasonable, courts 
within the Third Circuit follow the ‘forum rate rule,’ which provides that a court shall rely upon 
prevailing hourly rates in the district to determine whether charges are reasonable.”  LabMD, Inc. 

y. Tiversa Holding Corp., Civ. A. No. 15-92, 

2020 WL 1170796

, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2020) 
(quoting ThermoLife Int’l, LLC v. D.P.S. Nutrition, Inc., Civ. A. No. 15-273, 

2016 WL 6916777

, 
at *4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2016)).  “[T]he attorney’s normal billing rate is an appropriate baseline for 
assessing the reasonableness of the rate requested.” Jd, (quoting Chaney v. HVL, LLC, Civ. A. No. 
11-0833, 

2012 WL 5990124

, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2012)). 
     According to the Declaration (ECF No.  124), Attorney Alana Bassin bills at $375.00 per 
hour, Attorney Jennifer Bullard bills at $345.00 per hour, and Attorney Yasha Shahidi bills at 
$220.00 per hour.  These rates are well in line with the prevailing market rate in this community 
for attorneys of their practice areas and experience in comparable law firms.  See Animal Legal 
Defense Fund v. Lucas, Civ. A. No. 2:19-40, 

2021 WL 4479483

, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2021). 
     Regarding attendance at the four depositions, Attorney Bullard took the deposition of Dr. 
Mannen on November 8, 2022, which lasted for 8 hours and 52 minutes on the record.  Attorneys 
Bullard and Shahidi represented Defendant at the deposition of Dr. Ross on November 15, 2022 
which  lasted  for  5  hours  on the  record.   Attorney  Bassin,  Bullard,  and  Shahidi  represented 
Defendant at the deposition of Dr. Rosen on November 16, 2022, which lasted for 7 hours and 51 
minutes, and Attorneys Bassin, Bullard, and Shahidi represented Defendant at the deposition of 

                                     14 

Dr. Glancey which lasted for  5 hours and 45 minutes.’  Accordingly, the Court will award as a 
monetary  sanction against Attorney Bosworth in the amount of $19,713.50,  consisting of the 
following: 
     1.  Attendance of Dr. Mannen’s deposition by Attorney Bullard: 8.9 hours at $345.00 per 
        hour for a total of $3,070.50; 
     2.  Attendance of Dr. Ross’ deposition by Attorney Bullard and Attorney Shahidi: 5 hours 
        at $345 per hour and $220 per hour respectively for a total of $2,825.00; 
     3.  Attendance of Dr. Rosen’s deposition by Attorneys Bassin, Bullard and Shahidi: 8.9 
        hours at $375 per hour, $345 per hour, and $220 per hour respectively for a total of 
        $8,366.00; 
     4.  Attendance of Dr. Glancey’s deposition by Attorneys Bassin, Bullard and Shahidi: 5.8 
        hours at $375 per hour, $345 per hour, and $220 per hour respectively for a  total of 
        $5,452.00. 
     The Court finds that imposition of $19,713.50 as a monetary sanction is appropriate for 
Attorney Bosworth’s misconduct in the four depositions against Defense counsel. 
     The remaining bulk of Defendant’s Declaration (ECF No.  124) lists the fees Defendant 
incurred in the preparation of the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 69) and the Motion to Strike 
Improper Rebuttal Testimony (ECF No. 70), which were prepared while the litigation between 
Plaintiffs and Defendant was still pending.  Prior to filing the motions, Plaintiffs had already 
proposed that Defendant retake the depositions of the four experts, but Defendant filed the motions 
nonetheless. 

3  There is a billing entry for November 8, 2022 that lists Attorney Bassin attended Dr. Mannen’s 
deposition for 3.0 hours. However, the transcript reflects that she did not enter her appearance for 
Defendant at the deposition and was only listening in by telephone to part of the deposition (ECF 
No. 82-3 at p.  13). Also, Attorney Jenna Durr entered her appearance for the deposition of Dr. 
Glancey on November 17, 2022 on behalf of Defendant but there are no billing entries before the 
Court relating to this attendance. Due to the incomplete and/or conflicting information regarding 
these attorneys’ attendance of those depositions, the Court has not included them in its calculation. 
                                     15 

     In  the  Motion  for  Sanctions  (ECF  No.  69),  Defendant  argued  Attorney  Bosworth’s 
misconduct during the  depositions  incurably tainted Plaintiffs’  experts’  testimony,  prejudiced 
Defendant, and warranted the Court’s wholesale preclusion of Plaintiffs’ experts’ rebuttal reports 
and stipulation of certain facts (“Here, limiting Plaintiffs from supplementing expert opinions after 
inappropriate conduct during their expert depositions is the only real sanction that addresses the 
bad conduct other than excluding the testimony altogether.” ECF No. 69 at pp.  19, 20).  In the 
motion, Defendant primarily requested sanctions targeted at the merits of Plaintiffs’ case, while 
only two paragraphs are devoted to exacting monetary sanctions against Attorney Bosworth, Kline 
& Specter, or both. 
     Defendant’s Motion to Strike Improper Rebuttal Expert Testimony (ECF No. 70) does not 

move to strike the rebuttal reports because of Attorney Bosworth’s conduct, but rather on the 
procedural argument that the rebuttal reports were not being offered to  rebut the opinions of 
Defendant’s  experts  and  the  opinions  in the  rebuttal  reports  should  have  been  disclosed  in 
Plaintiffs’ initial expert reports. 
     Clearly, the two motions sought to benefit the litigation position of Defendant by restricting 
Plaintiff's ability to present its experts at trial.  However, the Court’s primary purpose in imposing 
the monetary sanctions here is to  sanction Attorney Bosworth’s misconduct and deter further 
conduct of that nature.  Given the strategic nature of these two motions, the Court will not award 

monetary sanctions against Attorney Bosworth for the preparation of these motions.* 

4 The Court also notes that, even if it were to parse out the fees with respect to preparation of the 
sanctions motion and the briefing relating to that motion only, many of the billing entries make 
that dissection impossible. For example, the billing entries submitted by Defendant show that 
Attorney Bullard analyzed deposition transcripts in order to draft the motion for sanctions and the 
motion to strike. Multiple other timekeepers, Attorneys Bassin, Mascusen, Durr and Barlow, also 
simultaneously worked on drafting these two motions and the Omnibus Reply Brief (ECF No. 92) 
in support of the motions. There were also instances where timekeepers were working on the 
                                     16 

           C.  Bosworth’s Brief in Opposition 
     In his Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Declaration (ECF No. 125), Attorney Bosworth 

argues that the Court’s public reprimand at the May 2, 2023 oral argument was sanction enough, 
and the Court should not impose any additional sanction in the form of a monetary award.  As the 
Court already ruled at the May 2, 2023 oral argument, and for the reasons set forth herein, Attorney 
Bosworth’s appalling behavior warrants the imposition of monetary sanctions. 
     Attorney Bosworth then argues the Court should only award fees relating to the percentage 
of time during the depositions that he frustrated Defendant’s counsel’s ability to fairly examine 
the witness, without specifying what he believes this percentage to be.  As previously stated, the 
Court finds that Attorney Bosworth’s behavior rendered the depositions futile and ineffective, and 

even Plaintiffs  agreed Defendant should be  able to retake the  depositions.  Aside  from how 
Attorney Bosworth’s misconduct impeded expert discovery in the case, his abhorrent treatment of 
defense counsel during the duration of the depositions is sanctionable conduct. All defense counsel 

were witness to, and at various times the target of, Attorney Bosworth’s inexcusable personal 
diatribes and obnoxious behavior during the depositions.  The record shows Attorneys Bullard, 
Bassin, and Shahidi repeatedly attempted to defuse Attorney Bosworth’s offensive behavior to no 
avail.  The  Court finds a sanction of the entire time Defendant’s  attorneys had to  attend the 
depositions and be subjected to Attorney Bosworth’s unprofessional and harassing conduct is 
appropriate. 

sanctions motion in conjunction with drafting Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Leave to Serve Late Expert Disclosure (ECF No. 68) or future Daubert motions.  Further, some of 
the billing entries relate only to the preparation of the Motion to Strike Improper Rebuttal Expert 
Testimony (ECF No. 70), which again, is not based on Attorney Bosworth’s conduct at the four 
depositions. 
                                     17 

     Attorney Bosworth also contends the Court should allow him the right to challenge the 
asserted fees at an evidentiary hearing to ensure his due process rights are maintained.  However, 
there is no factual dispute over the attorneys’ fees for the time Defendant’s counsel attended the 
four expert depositions and were subjected to Attorney Bosworth’s misconduct.  Further, the Court 
allowed for extensive briefing on this issue by Attorney Bosworth and carefully reviewed these 
filings.  A hearing is not necessary as there is not any genuine factual dispute for which a hearing 
would be helpful to resolve. 
     Attorney  Bosworth  lastly  appears  to  accuse  Defendant’s  counsel  of misconduct  and 
improper objections during the deposition of Defendant’s corporate designee, Andrew Farhat, 
which occurred on November 3, 2022.  He requests the Court grant him leave to file his own 
motion for sanctions against Defendant’s counsel to offset any monetary sanction entered against 
him.  Procedurally, the underlying case has settled, and there is simply no basis for the Court to 
consider such a request at this point.  Moreover, Attorney Bosworth fails to cite to any conduct by 
Defendant’s  attorneys that remotely mirrors his own rude, personal attacks and obstructionist 
behavior. 
 IV.  Conclusion 
     Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Attorney Thomas Bosworth shall pay to 
Defendant Kids 2 Inc. the sum of $19,713.50 within 30 days.  An appropriate Order will follow. 

    wg     ng  Oe  DANS             Abe  akan     9 TP  SOR     yp  py 
DATE: ‘Sey bre      i LULZ           zt iN cy i fide  PE AL gop 
                       ;                .~ Stephanie L. Haines 
                                         United States District Judge 

                                     18