Doe v. Purdue Univ.
Doe v. Purdue Univ.
2020 WL 13548341 (N.D. Ind. 2020)
July 7, 2020

Martin, John E.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Failure to Produce
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court granted Duerfahrd's motion to compel and ordered him to file an itemization of reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion. The Court found that the hourly rates requested by Duerfahrd were reasonable, and granted his Itemization of Costs and Fees Related to his Motion to Compel. Plaintiff was ordered to reimburse Defendant Duerfahrd in the sum of $6,967.50 within a reasonable time.
Additional Decisions
Jane DOE, Plaintiff,
v.
PURDUE UNIVERSITY and Lance Duerfahrd, Defendants
CAUSE NO. 4:18-CV-72-JVB-JEM
United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division, at Lafayette
Signed July 07, 2020

Counsel

C. Anthony Ashford, Ashford Law Group PC, Valparaiso, IN, Amishi P. Sanghvi, Sanghvi Law PC, Valparaiso, IN, for Plaintiff.
Matthew S. Ryan, Cotsirilos Tighe Streicker Poulos & Campbell Ltd., Chicago, IL, Emily Vermylen, US Department of Justice, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Lance Duerfahrd.
William P. Kealey, Matthew M. Humble, Stuart & Branigin LLP, Lafayette, IN, for Defendant Purdue University.
Martin, John E., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

*1 This matter is before the Court on Lance Duerfahrd's Itemization of Costs and Fees Related to his Motion to Compel [DE 94], filed June 15, 2020. Defendant Duerfahrd seeks attorney fees in the amount of $6,967.50 in connection with his successful motion to compel discovery. On June 1, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting Duerfahrd's motion to compel and ordering him to file an itemization of reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion. On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the instant request for fees, and counsel who had been working with Duerfahrd to resolve the outstanding discovery moved to withdraw. On July 7, 2020, Duerfahrd filed a reply in support of his motion.
Rule 37 provides that, if a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, the Court must not order the payment of fees if “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Id. District courts possess wide latitude in evaluating the reasonableness of requested attorney fees and costs. Johnson v. Kakvand, 192 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 1999).
Duerfahrd's Motion to Compel was granted, so it is up to Plaintiff to demonstrate that her nondisclosure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of attorney fees unjust. Counsel for Plaintiff argues that the failures of discovery were due to the failures of prior counsel, and that he was working diligently to respond to discovery, so no motion to compel was required. In reply, Duerfahrd points out that the fact discovery deadline was only a few days after the Motion to Compel was filed, but much of the discovery was not provided until after Plaintiff had already represented to the Court in her response that all outstanding discovery had already been provided. Indeed, Duerfahrd argues that some discovery requests still have not been responded to. In addition, as counsel for Duerfahrd points out, although he was getting along with counsel for Plaintiff and they were working on resolution of discovery matters, Plaintiff's attorney withdrew upon filing the instant response, and there is still discovery outstanding, including notices of deposition to which Plaintiff's new attorneys have not responded. Duerfahrd attempted in good faith to obtain the discovery prior to seeking Court action, Plaintiff's nondisclosure was not substantially justified, and there do not appear to be any other circumstances which make an award unjust.
Duerfahrd requests reimbursement for a total of 7.7 hours of attorney time at $300 per hour and 10.35 hours of attorney time at $450 per hour, including attempts to obtain discovery without court intervention and drafting the motion and supporting briefing. Plaintiff does not argue that the hourly rate or time expended are unreasonable. The Court finds that the hourly rates are reasonable, as is reimbursement for 18.05 hours of attorney time.
*2 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Lance Duerfahrd's Itemization of Costs and Fees Related to his Motion to Compel [DE 94] and ORDERS Plaintiff, her attorney, or Plaintiff and her past counsel, to reimburse Defendant Duerfahrd in the sum of $6,967.50 within a reasonable time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (providing that the award should be paid by “the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both”).
SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2020.