Court Has Discretion In Awarding Fees For Discovery Violations

Posted on February 14, 2007 by R. David Donoghue

Ropak Corp. v. Plastican, Inc., No. 04 C 5422, 2007 WL 328880 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2007) (Valdez, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Valdez awarded plaintiff certain of its fees related to motions to compel based upon the Court's August 15, 2006, order imposing Rule 37 discovery sanctions.  The Court noted its "considerable discretion" before reducing the fees so that they only included fees directly related to the particular discovery motions at issue.  The Court also removed entries for administrative tasks performed by attorneys that could have been performed by support staff.  And finally the Court reduced the hourly rates of the attorneys because plaintiff did not justify its rates by providing the Court information regarding standard rates in the Northern District or any biographical information regarding the attorneys to support their rates based upon their respective experience levels.  Practice tip:  If you are preparing a motion for fees, this opinion is an excellent place to look for determining what information to include in your motion and how to support your rates.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Comply With Discovery Orders or Suffer the Consequences

Posted on September 21, 2006 by R. David Donoghue
Ropak Corp. v. Plastican, Inc., No. 04 C 5422, 2006 WL 2385297 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2006) (Valdez, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Valdez’s opinion ruled on plaintiff’s Rule 37 motion for sanctions based upon defendant’s repeated refusal to fully meet its discovery obligations in this patent infringement dispute. The opinion demonstrates an important point: a party must comply with a court’s discovery orders (even orders issued by the most reasonable and forgiving court, as here) or suffer the consequences.

Defendant failed to sufficiently produce documents, answer interrogatories and respond to requests for admission after the Court, over a six month period, repeatedly ordered defendant to comply with its discovery obligations and repeatedly threatened sanctions. After each order, defendant took additional action, but it never fully met its obligations or the Court’s requirements. For example, defendant answered interrogatories by citing Rule 33(d), but failed to identify ranges of documents that were responsive to the interrogatories. After being ordered to fully answer or specify documents, defendant specified document ranges, but did not produce all documents responsive to the interrogatories.

The Court gave defendant a final chance to comply with the Court’s previous orders. The Court provided Defendant with five additional days to produce documents, and held that Defendant would not be allowed to rely upon any documents not produced by that deadline. The Court also deemed admitted a Request for Admission that defendant repeatedly failed to fully answer.

The Court also noted one of the paradoxes of document production: generally, when a party claims that its opponent has not fully produced documents, but that party claims that it has fully produced or just does not have any of the type of documents, the Court cannot be sure which party is correct. The Court concluded that it must rely on the facts available and the veracity of counsels’ statements.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,