*1 Pending before the Court is defendant Oakton Community College's motion for sanctions pursuant to the Court's inherent sanction power and Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [74].[1] Plaintiff, who is representing himself, has filed several responses. [75, 76, 77]. For the following reasons, defendant's motion is granted to the extent that it seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs under Rule 37 and an order requiring plaintiff to remove the recordings of his two depositions from his YouTube page. To the extent that the motion seeks dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, the Court has taken that request under advisement and will issue a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge in due course.[2]

On September 17, 2021, defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff to appear for a second deposition. [63]. Defendant's motion explained that plaintiff had appeared, via Zoom, for a remote deposition on September 9, 2021. When the deposition began, plaintiff made a series of statements suggesting that he was recording the deposition on his cell phone. See [id.] 2. Plaintiff had not served notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(B) of his intent to record the deposition himself, and defense counsel objected that he did not consent to being recorded and repeatedly sought to confirm whether plaintiff was in fact recording the deposition. After plaintiff refused to directly respond to counsel's question, defense counsel canceled the deposition. Several days later, plaintiff sent an email to defense counsel and the undersigned's chambers that contained threatening language directed at defense counsel as well as a YouTube link to a recording of the September 9 deposition. See [63-2] 1.

On November 5, 2021, the Court granted the motion and ordered plaintiff to appear for a second deposition. [69]. The Court also issued a protective order “forbidding plaintiff to record his second deposition by any means whatsoever.” [Id.] 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)). In so ruling, the Court found that “plaintiff's obstructionist behavior during the first deposition and his attempt to use a recording of the deposition (posted to YouTube) to harass or threaten defense counsel weigh[ed] strongly in favor of granting a protective order to ensure such conduct does not recur.” [Id.]. Despite being “convinced that plaintiff's conduct at his first deposition was purposeful and meant to frustrate defense counsel's ability to complete the deposition and impede the progress of the litigation,” the Court declined to impose a financial sanction on plaintiff under Rule 37(a)(5). The Court concluded that plaintiff may have been unaware that such conduct could lead the Court to impose financial or other sanctions on him. But the Court explained that “plaintiff is now on notice that the conduct he engaged in ... is sanctionable, and plaintiff's pro se status will not be an excuse should plaintiff engage in similarly obstructive conduct either at his renewed deposition or as the case moves forward.” [Id.] 4-5.

*2 Plaintiff appeared for his second remote deposition on November 19, 2021. [74] 4. At the outset, plaintiff refused to directly answer defense counsel's questions whether plaintiff was aware of the Court's November 5 order and whether plaintiff understood that he was prohibited from recording this deposition. See [74-1] 5-8, 10-11. Plaintiff also refused to provide a straight answer when asked whether he was recording the deposition, stating only that he was “doing lawful activities.” [Id.] 11-12. Deciding that any further attempt to discover whether plaintiff was recording the deposition would be futile, defense counsel elected to proceed with the deposition. Yet plaintiff continued to obstruct the deposition by providing evasive or non-sensical answers. For example, when defense counsel asked whether plaintiff was taking any medications that could affect his deposition testimony, plaintiff responded that he had “every right to protect my personal information, my private information, my confidential information from the general public for my safety.” [Id.] 17-18. Plaintiff then gave essentially that same response to more than forty different questions. See [74] 5-6 (collecting examples of plaintiff's deposition testimony). Despite these answers, defense counsel was able to complete the deposition. On December 10, 2021, plaintiff sent an email to defense counsel and the undersigned's chambers in which he admitted that he recorded the second deposition “for safety purposes.” [74-2] 1. Plaintiff also accused defense counsel of asking the court reporter who transcribed the deposition to “alter[ ] and change[ ]” what was said during the deposition. [Id.]. Later that same day, plaintiff sent another email to defense counsel and the Court that contained a YouTube link to a recording of the second deposition. [74-3].

Defendant has now moved for the imposition of sanctions and dismissal of plaintiff's case based on his “obstructionist, harassing and threatening behavior during and after his depositions on September 9, 2021 and November 19, 2021, including his willful violation of the Court's November 5, 2021 order” that prohibited him from recording the second deposition. See [74] 8. Defendant also asks that plaintiff be ordered to remove the two deposition recordings from plaintiff's YouTube page. Defendant's motion invokes the Court's power under Rule 37(b) and the Court's inherent power to protect the administration of justice by levying sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices. [Id.] 7. In his opposition briefs, plaintiff argues that he answered all of defendant's questions at the deposition, that he was entitled to record the deposition, and that defendant is trying to mislead the Court. See [75] 2; [76] 2.

Under Rule 37(b), the Court may impose sanctions against a party that “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). These sanctions may include, but are not limited to, directing that designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting certain claims or introducing certain evidence, striking pleadings in whole or in part, staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, dismissing the action, and holding the disobedient party in contempt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). Rule 37(b) also empowers the Court to order the disobedient party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure “unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make the award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). These sanctions are appropriate when a party displays “willfulness, bad faith or fault.” Langley v. Union Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 510, 514 (7th Cir. 1997).

The Court concludes that sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) are warranted for plaintiff's willful violation of the Court's protective order barring him from recording his second deposition. The Court will therefore require plaintiff to pay defendant's reasonable attorney fees and costs associated that were incurred in connection with plaintiff's second deposition and the filing of this sanctions motion.[3]

First, case law from the Northern District of Illinois recognizes that “ ‘Rule 37(b)(2) should provide comprehensively for enforcement’ of orders issued under Rule 26(c).” Instant Tech., LLC v. DeFazio, No. 12 C 491, 2013 WL 5966893, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 comm. nn. (1970)); accord NeuroGrafix v. Brainlab, Inc., Case No. 12 C 6075, 2020 WL 6153269, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2020) (imposing sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) for party's violation of protective order). Second, there is no question that plaintiff violated the protective order: the order prohibited plaintiff from recording the deposition in any fashion, but plaintiff admits that he did so. Third, an award of fees and costs is mandatory under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) unless plaintiff's failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make the award of expenses unjust. The Court has no doubt that plaintiff's brazen violation of the Court's November 5, 2021 order was willful and done in bad faith. The order unambiguously prohibited plaintiff from recording the deposition, yet plaintiff openly defied the order, recorded the deposition, and even posted a recording of it on YouTube. His refusal to answer defense counsel's simple questions about whether he was aware of the Court's order and whether he was in fact recording the deposition only underscore that plaintiff was acting in bad faith. Finally, plaintiff has not identified any circumstances that would make an award of fees and costs unjust, and his responses to defendant's motion completely ignore the Court's November 5 order.

*3 Finally, the Court will order plaintiff to remove the recordings of the two depositions from his YouTube page. Plaintiff recorded the first deposition in violation of Rule 30(b)–which required him to serve prior notice of his intention to record the deposition–and over the repeated objections of defense counsel, who did not consent to being recorded. Similarly, plaintiff recorded the second deposition not only in violation of Rule 30(b, but also this Court's order of November 5, 2021 forbidding him to record the deposition. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to order plaintiff to remove the videos from YouTube and to prevent him from doing it again. See, e.g., ReachLocal, Inc. v. PPC Claim Ltd., Case No. CV 16-1007-R, 2018 WL 6265097, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2018) (holding defendants in contempt for failure to comply with protective order requiring them to remove video recordings of depositions from YouTube); Venus Springs v. Ally Fin., Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00311-MOC-DCK, 2015 WL 1893825, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2015) (ordering plaintiff to remove “any video or audio recordings related to this action ... from YouTube,” which plaintiff had posted in violation of prior protective order).

Within seven days of the date of this order, plaintiff must (1) remove the recordings of his two depositions from his YouTube page and any other website where the recordings are posted, and (2) file an affidavit on the Court's docket confirming that he has complied with this order requiring that the recordings of his two depositions to be removed from YouTube and any other websites where the recordings may be posted. Furthermore, plaintiff is hereby prohibited from publicly disseminating the recordings of the two depositions. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will factor that failure into its Report and Recommendation to the District Judge regarding defendant's motion to sanction plaintiff by dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that a failure to comply with this order may lead to the dismissal of his case with prejudice.

Defendant's motion for sanctions is granted to the extent it seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs under Rule 37(b)(2)(C). Defendant is entitled to recover the reasonable attorney's fees and costs it incurred in connection with the deposition of plaintiff on November 19, 2021 and the filing of the sanctions motion. Defendant shall file a statement of fees and costs, along with supporting materials to justify the fees sought, within ten days of the date of this order. Plaintiff may file a response to defendant's statement within ten days after defendant's statement is filed. Within seven days of the date of this order, plaintiff must (1) remove the recordings of his two depositions from his YouTube page and any other website where the recordings are posted, and (2) file an affidavit on the Court's docket confirming that he has complied with this order requiring the recordings to be removed from YouTube and any other websites where the recordings may be posted. Finally, plaintiff is hereby prohibited from any further public dissemination of the recordings of the two depositions. Defendant's motion remains under advisement to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the case with prejudice, and the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation on that part of the motion in due course.