ÿWPC¨  NJR}Xßópäú–ŽUܘmwAø¯ Î©ô]Û—Wê\Êj•r SbqOÈúb»?nʰ`º¸O¬†+Jö%„ýâ—Ü'ªtr>Rq®hË )á ×kœwÀâá›{¥-3ÛKÀmsmB’hîY¹ÊX³t ÔE;_ÉvKêçgI ¡tºÄ€!¾ 7Vâ¬BXõÖã'H«ë“‰ÿ ç‰UIs\+*ôà=Cä7öK>:ŶËAkÒØ±Pª= ûg?lD5]•¬8 ˜útSEZ¥>}âü°ô-©.f7$!ðæõ Ÿ)šs¯Ó•Ï®<äXeL¹ üöR.¿â¿?WOï €'—¢RŠ¶Ûøp‚ˆMGÊ‘ÄI:oœu¨2è?²“ ~cA$üñõ)±óû-P‚}Q™2Øì½75[þ÷2Ìõ'I¯­ßOn¢èÒXZ+›jïÀQ2G,É£æwx?ÇW´ˆ&·9¬­œ³Ý]k^UoÂåª0Y©6÷Mó1_ìZÒ‰úgð,=ºAVÌð‘{ÓžÈÕÀ kÂÁkú"§~¼ ¯IŒ£€Ù}‰‹ ñ®í¢:çך•eʸ쩱bê˜##ÁêUN« %ù 0(ÿw'4+?¦N 0lô 0D``¤N¬^ ®º m¼°Óƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ B‹ ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(uHš Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡š‚,-3|x œÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€remaining€defendants€have€not€appealed€from€the€Chancery€Court€order.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóxŸ-s ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ¦Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Rule€30.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€provide€that€ð ð[a]€party€may€inÐ ° Ðthe€partyððs€notice€and€in€a€subpoena€name€as€the€deponent€a€public€or€private€corporation€...€andÐ œì Ðdescribe€with€reasonable€particularity€the€matters€on€which€examination€is€requested.ðð€Tenn.€R.Ð ˆØ ÐCiv.€P.€30.02(6).€€ð ð[T]he€organization€so€named€shall€designate€one€or€more€officers,€directors,Ð tÄ Ðmanaging€agents,€or€other€persons€who€consent€to€testify€on€its€behalf.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð `° Ð30.02(6).  dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡¼¾»XXÔÑ8€PRXXdìdÈ8Ñà@‰ ‰ ìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE€ˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ  ÐÔ#†XPRX»¼¾+#Ôà@õõìàÔ‡¼¾»XXPRÔSeptember€3,€2002€SessionÔ#†XPRX»¼¾8#ԈРÔ$ ÐÌÔ‡¼¾»XXPRÔò òà@è è ìàVANDERBILT€UNIVERSITYˆÐ Ò" Ðà@ff)ìàvs.ˆÐ æ 6 ÐÓ  ÓàB@ì.°° àÔ_ÔTECHGEMÔ_Ô€DIAMOND€TOOLS,€INC.,€TECH„GEM€CORP.,€S.S.€GUPTA,€à@@W W ìàÐ ú J Ða/k/a€S.S.€Ô_ÔKANDELWALÔ_Ô,€and€Ô_ÔSURESHÔ_Ô€GUPTAÐ  ^ ÐÓ4ÓÌÔ#†XPRX»¼¾ª#Ôó óà@Œ Œ ìàAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€of€Davidson€CountyˆÐ 6†  Ðà@! ! ìàNo.€98„1321„I€€€€Chancellor€Irvin€H.€Ô_ÔKilcreaseÔ_Ô,€Jr.ˆÐ "r  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à______________________________Ð úJ  ÐÓ  Óà@@­­ìàNo.€M2001„02505„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV„€ò òFiled€December€31,€Ô_Ô2002ó óÔ_ÔÐ æ6  Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ à______________ò òó ó________________Ð Ö& ÐÌà @ àThis€is€an€appeal€by€Tech„Gem€Corporation€from€a€default€judgment€entered€by€the€ChanceryÐ ®þ ÐCourt€of€Davidson€County€as€a€sanction€for€non„compliance€with€discovery€orders.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Prior€toÐ šê Ðtrial,€the€Chancellor€granted€Vanderbilt€Universityððs€Motion€for€a€Default€Judgment€againstÐ †Ö ÐTech„Gem€as€to€all€four€issues€of€liability€alleged€in€Vanderbiltððs€complaint€because€of€repeatedÐ r Ðfailures€to€comply€with€discovery€requests.€€Over€one€year€later,€the€Chancellor€heard€the€caseÐ ^® Ðand€found€that€Vanderbilt€was€entitled€to€a€judgment,€jointly€and€severally€against€the€defendantsÐ Jš ÐÔ_ÔTechGemÔ_Ô€Diamond€Tools,€Inc.€and€Tech„Gem,€in€the€amount€of€$22,731.00€plus€pre„judgmentÐ 6† Ðinterest.€After€the€trial,€Tech„Gem€filed€a€Motion€to€Set€Aside€the€Default€Judgment.€€TheÐ "r ÐChancellor€denied€the€motion€and€found€that€Vanderbilt€would€be€prejudiced€if€the€Motion€to€SetÐ ^ ÐAside€were€granted.€€We€agree€with€the€trial€court€and€affirm€its€decision€for€the€reasons€statedÐ úJ Ðherein.€€€€€€€€€Ð æ6 ÐÌò òTenn.€R.€app.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€is€Affirmed€andÐ ¾ ÐRemandedÐ ª ú ÐÌó óÔ_ÔJ.S.Ô_Ô€DANIEL,€Ô_ÔSp.J.Ô_Ô,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court€in€which€BEN€H.€Ô_ÔCANTRELLÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,€M.S.,Ð ‚"Ò Ðand€WILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€J.€joined.Ð n#¾  ÐÌAlan€Dale€Johnson€and€Alfred€H.€Knight,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Tech„GemÐ F%– " ÐCorp.€Ð 2&‚!# ÐÌKatharine€R.€Cloud,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€Vanderbilt€University.Ð  (Z#% ÐÐ ö(F$& ÐÔ_Ô‡à@@ìì*ìàÌà@@¥¥(ìàòòò òFACTSóóó óÐ œì ÐÌà @ àTech„Gem€is€a€New€York€corporation€that€is€wholly€owned€by€Diety€Corporation,€also€a€NewÐ tÄ ÐYork€company.€€S.S.€Gupta,€a€citizen€and€resident€of€India,€€is€the€sole€shareholder€of€DietyÐ `° ÐCorporation.€€S.S.€Gupta€is€the€father€of€Suresh€Gupta.€€Suresh€Gupta,€also€an€Indian€citizen,€€isÐ L œ Ðthe€brother„in„law€of€Dr.€Kiran€Desai.€€Dr.€Desai€is€the€president€of€TechGem€Diamond€Tools,Ð 8 ˆ ÐInc.,€a€Tennessee€corporation,€with€its€principal€place€of€business€in€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee.€€Ð $ t Ðà @ àÌà @ àOn€February€22,€1995,€Vanderbilt€entered€into€a€one€year€contract€with€TechGem€DiamondÐ ü L  ÐTools.€€The€terms€of€the€contract€required€Vanderbilt€to€develop€computer€software€for€use€in€aÐ è 8  Ðrobotics€manufacturing€system€to€cut€gem€stones.€€Vanderbilt€was€to€receive€a€total€ofÐ Ô$  Ð$75,769.00€which€was€to€be€paid€as€follows:€25%€upon€execution€of€the€agreement,€25%€afterÐ À  Ðcompletion€of€the€first€quarter,€25%€after€completion€of€the€second€quarter,€and€25%€afterÐ ¬ü  Ðcompletion€of€the€project.€€Ð ˜è  Ðà @ àÌà @ àOn€April€28,€1998,€Vanderbilt€filed€a€complaint€alleging€breach€of€contract,€misrepresentationÐ pÀ Ðand€fraudulent€inducements,€unjust€enrichment,€and€piercing€the€corporate€veil€of€TechGemÐ \¬ ÐDiamond€Tools.€€Vanderbilt€named€TechGem€Diamond€Tools,€Tech„Gem,€S.S.€Gupta,€andÐ H˜ ÐSuresh€Gupta€in€the€complaint€as€defendants.€€Vanderbilt€asserts€in€its€complaint€that€S.S.€Gupta,Ð 4„ ÐSuresh€Gupta,€and€Tech„Gem€exercised€complete€dominion€and€control€over€the€finances,Ð  p Ðpolicies,€and€business€practices€of€TechGem€Diamond€Tools.€€Vanderbilt€further€alleges€that€theÐ  \ Ðagreement€with€TechGem€Diamond€Tools€was€entered€into€only€after€receiving€assurances€fromÐ øH ÐSuresh€Gupta€and€Tech„Gem€that€they€would€be€responsible€for€payment€under€the€terms€of€theÐ ä4 Ðcontract€to€Vanderbilt.€€Furthermore,€Vanderbilt€alleges€that€without€these€assurances,€it€wouldÐ Ð  Ðnot€have€entered€into€the€contract€and€that€TechGem€Diamond€Tools€was€unjustly€enriched€byÐ ¼  Ðthe€services€provided€to€them€by€Vanderbilt.€Ð ¨ø Ðà @ àÌà @ àOn€May€29,€2001,€a€trial€on€the€merits€was€held€against€the€remaining€defendants€as€to€liabilityÐ €Ð Ðand€against€all€defendants€as€to€damages.€€Vanderbilt€entered€a€certified€copy€of€the€March€20,Ð l¼ Ð2000€order€as€to€liability€against€Tech„Gem€as€its€first€exhibit.€€No€additional€proof€was€put€on€byÐ X ¨ ÐVanderbilt€as€to€Tech„Gemððs€liability.€€€€€€Ð D!” Ðà @ àÌà @ àIn€determining€the€damage€aspect€of€the€case,€the€trial€court€noted€that€the€contract€includes€theÐ #l! Ðfollowing€language€concerning€termination€and€default:€ð ð[u]pon€termination,€[TechGemÐ $X" ÐDiamond€Tools]€will€pay€Vanderbilt€$7,577€for€each€of€the€tasks€undertaken€in€the€proposal.ðð€Ð ô$D # ÐThe€contract€includes€a€list€of€ten€tasks€that€Vanderbilt€was€to€perform.€€TechGem€DiamondÐ à%0!$ ÐTools€contends€that€Vanderbilt€did€not€complete€the€contract.€€Vanderbiltððs€position€is€that€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcontract€imposed€an€obligation€on€TechGem€Diamond€Tools€to€provide€the€ð ðhardwareðð€and€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐTechGem€Diamond€Toolsððs€failure€to€provide€the€ð ðhardwareðð€resulted€in€Vanderbiltððs€inability€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcomplete€the€project.€€The€trial€court€found€that€ð ðbased€upon€the€unambiguous€language€of€theÐ )à$( Ðcontract,€TechGem€Diamond€Tools€did€not€have€an€obligation€to€provide€the€ððhardwareðð€toÐ |*Ì%) ÐVanderbilt.ðð€Ð h+¸&* Ðà @ àÌà @ àMoreover,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€contract€contemplates€payment€for€work€that€wasÐ œì Ðcompleted€and€determined€that€Vanderbilt€had€in€fact€completed€three€of€the€ten€tasks.€Ð ˆØ ÐTherefore,€based€upon€the€contract€terms,€€a€judgment€for€$22,731.00€was€awarded€to€Vanderbilt.Ð tÄ ÐÌà @ àAfter€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€and€over€a€year€after€the€entry€of€the€default€judgment,€€Tech„Ð L œ ÐGem€filed€a€Motion€to€Set€Aside€Default€Judgment.€€The€Chancellor€denied€this€motion€findingÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€Vanderbilt€would€be€prejudiced€if€the€Motion€to€Set€Aside€were€granted.€€It€is€from€thisÐ $ t Ðdetermination€that€Tech„Gem€appeals.Ð  ` Ѐ€€€€à @ àÐ ü L  Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àò òòòà@@¡ ¡ ìàDISCOVERY€MISCONDUCT€WHICH€€LED€TO€DEFAULTóóó óÐ è 8  ÐÌà @ àA€review€of€the€record€demonstrates€that€Tech„Gem€was€uncooperative€during€the€entireÐ À  Ðdiscovery€process.€€On€August€4,€1998,€Vanderbilt€propounded€its€First€Set€of€Interrogatories€andÐ ¬ü  ÐRequests€for€Production€of€Documents€to€all€Defendants.€€After€counsel€for€Vanderbilt€had€sentÐ ˜è  Ðthree€separate€letters€insisting€that€the€defendants€comply€with€discovery€requests,€VanderbiltÐ „Ô  Ðfiled€a€Motion€to€Compel€Discovery€on€November€25,€1998.€€Tech„Gem€failed€to€respond€to€thisÐ pÀ Ðmotion.€€On€December€21,€1998,€the€trial€court€entered€an€Order€compelling€discovery€responsesÐ \¬ Ðwithin€ten€days.€€Tech„Gem€failed€to€comply€with€the€order€and€Vanderbilt€moved€for€aÐ H˜ Ðjudgment€by€default.€€Responses€and€discovery€request€were€received€on€January€5,€1999€and€theÐ 4„ Ðtrial€court€refused€Vanderbiltððs€request€for€default.Ð  p ÐÌà @ àNext,€Vanderbilt€filed€its€Second€Motion€for€Judgment€by€Default€or,€in€the€Alternative€toÐ øH ÐCompel€Attendance€at€Deposition€after€Tech„Gem€ignored€Vanderbiltððs€May€6,€1999,€Notice€ofÐ ä4 ÐDeposition.€€The€Notice€set€the€deposition€at€the€New€York€offices€of€Tech„Gem.€€Not€only€didÐ Ð  ÐTech„Gem€fail€to€appear€at€the€deposition,€it€failed€to€notify€Vanderbilt€that€it€would€not€appear.€Ð ¼  ÐThe€trial€court€denied€Vanderbiltððs€motion€for€default€but€its€August€25,€1999€Order€stated€thatÐ ¨ø Ðnot€only€had€ð ðTech„Gem€Corp.€failed€to€appear€for€its€deposition€which€had€been€duly€noticedÐ ”ä Ðfor€June€8,€1999€at€its€office€at€608€5th€Avenue,€New€York,€New€York;€that€there€was€noÐ €Ð Ðjustifiable€excuse€for€this€failure€to€appear€and€that€appropriate€sanctions€should€result€because€ofÐ l¼ ÐTech„Gemððs€conduct.ðð€€Once€again€the€trial€court€refused€to€order€a€default€for€this€inappropriateÐ X ¨ Ðconduct.€The€trial€court€did,€however,€order€Tech„Gem€to€provide€a€representative€to€appear€for€aÐ D!” Ðdeposition€in€Nashville,€Tennessee€pursuant€to€Rule€30.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÐ 0"€  ÐProcedure,€pay€one„half€of€Vanderbiltððs€expenses€and€costs€with€respect€to€its€trip€to€New€York,Ð #l! Ðand€pay€reasonable€attorneysðð€fees€and€expenses€associated€with€its€Motion€For€Judgment€byÐ $X" ÐDefault.€Ð ô$D # Ðà @ àÌà @ àAfter€the€August€25,€1999€Order€was€entered,€Vanderbilt€remained€unsuccessful€in€schedulingÐ Ì&"% ÐTech„Gemððs€representativeððs€deposition.€€In€addition,€Tech„Gem€did€not€comply€with€the€trialÐ ¸'#& Ðcourtððs€order€to€pay€sanctions.€€Therefore,€on€November€4,€1999,€Vanderbilt€filed€its€ThirdÐ ¤(ô#' ÐMotion€for€Judgment€by€Default€against€Tech„Gem.€€Only€after€Vanderbilt€filed€its€Third€MotionÐ )à$( Ðfor€Default€did€Tech„Gem€attempt€to€comply€with€the€August€order.€€Tech„Gem€paid€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðsanctions€and€advised€Vanderbilt€that€S.S.€Gupta€would€be€in€the€United€States€during€the€monthÐ h+¸&* Ðof€February€2000€and€indicated€that€he€would€be€available€to€be€deposed€both€in€his€individualÐ ° Ðcapacity€and€as€the€representative€for€Tech„Gem.€€Vanderbilt€informed€Tech„Gem€that€it€couldÐ œì Ðnot€agree€to€postpone€the€rule€30.02(6)€deposition€that€long.€€In€response,€Tech„Gem€presentedÐ ˆØ ÐAnupam€Dave€as€their€rule€30.02(6)€representative.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€time€of€his€deposition,€Mr.€Dave€hadÐ tÄ Ðbeen€employed€by€Tech„Gem€for€approximately€four€months€and€had€virtually€no€knowledge€ofÐ `° Ðany€of€the€requested€topics.€€Specifically,€€he€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€the€facts€andÐ L œ Ðrelationships€of€the€parties€which€were€the€subject€of€the€lawsuit.Ð 8 ˆ Ðà @ àÌà @ àAfter€the€futile€attempt€to€depose€Mr.€Dave€as€Tech„Gemsððs€corporate€representative,€VanderbiltÐ  ` Ðagain€attempted€to€schedule€depositions€for€both€S.S.€Gupta€and€Suresh€Gupta€in€February€2000.€Ð ü L  ÐAt€that€time€Vanderbilt€was€informed€that€the€Guptas€would€not€be€available€for€depositions€inÐ è 8  ÐFebruary,€but€would€be€available€some€time€in€March.€€Tech„Gemððs€failure€to€produce€S.S.Ð Ô$  ÐGupta€for€deposition€forced€Vanderbilt€to€file€its€fourth€and€final€Motion€for€Judgment€byÐ À  ÐDefault€on€February€25,€2000.€€€On€March€20,€2000,€the€trial€court€granted€Vanderbiltððs€motionÐ ¬ü  Ðagainst€Tech„Gem€as€to€all€four€issues€of€liability€alleged€in€the€complaint€as€a€sanction€for€itsÐ ˜è  Ðfailure€to€comply€with€discovery€orders.€€€Ð „Ô  Ðà @ àÌà@@þþ&ìàòòò òDECISIONóóó óÐ \¬ ÐÌà @ àTennessee€law€firmly€establishes€the€trial€courtððs€control€over€pre„trial€discovery€and€theÐ 4„ Ðimpositions€of€sanctions€for€discovery€abuse.€€òòBenton€v.€Snyder,€óó825€S.W.2d€409,€416€(Tenn.Ð  p Ð1992);€òòLewis€v.€Brooks,€óó66€S.W.3d€883,€886€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).€€Rule€37.02€of€the€Tennessee€Ð  \ ÐRules€of€Civil€Procedure€provides€numerous€options€of€which€the€trial€court€may€avail€itselfÐ øH Ðwhen€faced€with€a€party€who€disregards€discovery€orders.€€Rule€37.02€(C)€specifically€authorizesÐ ä4 Ðthe€trial€court€to€render€a€default€judgment€against€a€party€as€a€sanction€for€the€partyððs€€non„Ð Ð  Ðcompliance€with€discovery€orders.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€37.02€(C);€òòShahrdar€v.€Global€Housing,€Inc.,Ð ¼  Ðóó983€S.W.2d€230,€236€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998);€òòYearwood,€Johnson,€Stanton€&€Crabtree,€Inc.€v.Ð ¨ø ÐFoxland€Development€Venture,€óó828€S.W.2d€412,€413€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòHolt€v.€Webster,Ð ”ä Ðóó638€S.W.2d€391,€394€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€A€default€judgment€€is€an€extreme€sanction,Ð €Ð Ðhowever,€ð ðit€is€appropriate€ððwhere€there€has€been€a€clear€record€of€delay€or€contumaciousÐ l¼ Ðconduct.ðððð€òòShahrdar,€óó983€S.W.2d€at€236€(quoting€òòIn€re€Beckman,óó78€B.R.€516,€517€(M.D.€Tenn.Ð X ¨ Ð1987)).€€When€a€trial€court,€in€its€discretion,€€renders€a€judgment€by€default€as€a€discoveryÐ D!” Ðsanction,€its€decision€will€only€be€reversed€upon€a€finding€of€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòBrooks€v.Ð 0"€  ÐUnited€Uniform€Co.,€óó682€S.W.2d€913,€915€(Tenn.€1984);€òòShahrdar,€óó983€S.W.2d€at€236;€òòHolt,Ð #l! Ðóó638€S.W.2d€at€394.€€òò€óó€Ð $X" ÐÐ ô$D # Ðà @ àBased€upon€Tech„Gemððs€willful€disregard€of€the€trial€courtððs€discovery€orders,€we€find€the€trialÐ ° Ðcourtððs€rendering€of€a€default€judgment€against€Tech„Gem€to€be€an€appropriate€use€of€theÐ œì Ðsanctions€provided€to€the€court€by€Rule€37.02€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€InÐ ˆØ Ðaddition,€we€find€that€Tech„Gem€has€waived€its€right€to€challenge€the€default€judgment.€€We€noteÐ tÄ Ðthat€a€motion€for€relief€from€a€default€judgment€must€ð ðbe€made€within€a€reasonable€time.ðð€€Tenn.Ð `° ÐR.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€In€this€case,€Tech„Gem€waited€approximately€fifteen€months€after€the€entry€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€judgment€and€after€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€before€it€attempted€to€set€the€judgment€aside.Ð 8 ˆ ÐDespite€the€fact€that€an€order€declaring€liability€had€been€entered€against€it,€Tech„Gem€chose€toÐ $ t Ðproceed€to€trial€without€taking€any€steps€to€challenge€the€default€judgment.€€Tech„GemððsÐ  ` Ðinaction,€therefore,€constituted€a€waiver€as€to€any€bases€it€may€have€possessed€to€challenge€theÐ ü L  Ðjudgment.Ð è 8  Ðà @ àÌà @ àWe,€therefore,€find€that€the€record€does€not€reflect€an€abuse€of€the€lower€courtððs€discretion€in€itsÐ À  Ðimposition€of€€a€default€judgment€as€a€Rule€37.02€discovery€sanction€and€affirm€the€trial€courtððsÐ ¬ü  Ðrefusal€to€set€this€judgment€aside.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À à____________________________________ò òÐ \¬ Ðà @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àó óJ.€S.€DANIEL,€JUDGE€