1 post • Page 1 of 1
At this late date, after so much protracted and expensive litigation, Crazy Collector has waived arbitration. E.g., PPG Indus., Inc. v. Webster Auto Parts, Inc., 128 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 1997); Kramer v. Hammond, 943 F.2d 176, 179 (2d Cir. 1991). In Cotton v. Slone, 4 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 1993), the court stated. Slone actively litigated this dispute in federal court. Discovery was conducted by both parties, with Slone initiating at least two depositions, including those of Cotton and her expert witness. Slone made several substantive motions, including one for summary judgment. In resisting discovery, Slone repeatedly invoked and submitted himself to the powers and procedures of the district court: he sought extensions of time and revisions of the discovery schedule, and at least twice sought protective orders which were denied. Slone's conduct has imposed unnecessary expense and delay on Cotton, which would be compounded if she were now required to arbitrate her claim. Meanwhile, Slone has secured for himself the benefits of pretrial discovery that is often unavailable in an arbitral forum. See Zwitserse Maatschappij van Levensverszekering en Lijfrente v. ABN Int'l Capital Markets Corp., 996 F.2d 1478, 1480 (2d Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (waiver found where party litigated for over a year in non-U.S. judicial forum and engaged in discovery not available in arbitration). The resulting prejudice to Cotton compels a finding of waiver.