Sheldon Adelson sanctioned for refusing to answer questions in deposition

Billionaire Las Vegas casino executive Sheldon Adelson and one of his attorneys were hit with sanctions by a judge Monday after Adelson repeatedly refused to answer questions during a lawsuit deposition.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Carl Hoffman also ordered Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands Corp., over Adelson’s objections to appear for another deposition in the lawsuit, an overtime claim by a former driver for Adelson.

"There is no question Adelson is a busy, high-ranking executive. However, that status, by itself, is insufficient to preclude his deposition. The court is satisfied that Adelson has personal knowledge of facts relevant to this lawsuit and his deposition may go forward," Hoffman wrote in his order.

At issue is an Oct. 6 deposition that was terminated early, after just 10 minutes, by the plaintiff’s attorney after Adelson politely but firmly refused to answer some questions on the advice of his attorney, Patrick Hicks.

A video of the deposition filed as a court exhibit shows Hicks repeatedly objecting to questions that Hicks charged had nothing to do with the driver’s overtime claim.

After the deposition was terminated, Hicks filed court papers saying Adelson shouldn’t be subjected to further depositions in the case as his underlings — rather than Adelson — know the details about the driver’s employment.

But Hoffman, in Monday’s order, said some of the questions posed to Adelson by the driver’s attorney, Donald Campbell, appeared to be foundational.

Hoffman said they also appeared to be relevant as they dealt with Adelson’s understanding of two companies that provide services for Adelson and his family.

The judge found Hicks had repeatedly objected on relevance grounds and demanded repeatedly that Campbell explain the relevance of the questions.

“It is inappropriate to interrogate opposing counsel during the course of a deposition,” Hoffman wrote in his order.

“The court finds that Adelson’s refusal to answer questions based upon his counsel’s continuous suggestive, argumentative and unnecessary objections improperly impeded and frustrated fair examination of Adelson during the deposition,” Hoffman wrote.

As a sanction, Hoffman ordered that Adelson and his codefendant companies in the case pay all of the plaintiff driver’s costs and attorney’s fees associated with the initial deposition, that Adelson’s deposition be taken again within three weeks and that the defendants pay all costs and legal fees associated with the new deposition.

Hoffman noted in his order that there’s been plenty of acrimony in this case, in separate overtime and race discrimination complaints filed by Campbell against Las Vegas Sands and in past litigation pitting Campbell against Adelson.

The controversies in the driver’s lawsuit were further inflamed when a spokesman for Las Vegas Sands told VEGAS INC on Sept. 19 that in a state court lawsuit deposition in 2006, Campbell had become angry and tried to throw books at Adelson.

Hoffman, in Monday’s order, noted Campbell had filed a video of that deposition disproving the spokesman’s account.

Hoffman further noted that Adelson’s request was denied for Campbell to be found in contempt of court for allegedly releasing the 2006 deposition video to the media.