MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GERALDINE SOAT BROWN, Magistrate Judge

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order of October 6, 2003 [dkt 35], sanctions were entered against plaintiff Daniel Plump pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) and 30(d)(3). (Mem. Op. and Order at 11-12). Specifically, Plump was ordered to pay the costs and fees incurred by defendant Kraft Foods North America, Inc. ("Kraft") in preparing, filing and arguing Kraft's Motion for Sanctions, or, in the Alternative to Compel [dkt 27] and in taking the second session of Plump's deposition on June 9, 2003. ( Id.) Kraft was directed to serve a statement of fees and costs by October 20, 2003, and Plump was ordered to serve a statement of any specific item disputed and to pay any undisputed amount by November 1, 2003. ( Id. at 12.) The parties were directed to follow Local Rule 54.3(e) and (f) with respect to any disputed item. ( Id.)

At the status hearing on November 6, 2003, Kraft's counsel reported that they had submitted a statement of fees pursuant to the October 6, 2003 order, but had not received any payment from Plump or any response except Plaintiffs Answer to Petition for Sanctions. [Dkt 39.] On December 12, 2003, this court declined to award sanctions sought in Kraft's second Motion for Sanctions and to Compel [dkt 36], but allowed Plaintiff's Answer to Petition for Sanctions to stand as Plump's response to Kraft's statement of fees. [Dkt 41.] Kraft's statement (attached as Appendix A to this order) seeks a total award of sanctions in the amount of $9,824.10. Plump's Answer does not dispute any specific items in Kraft's statement of fees and costs. Rather, Plump argues generally that:

[t]he petition is full of unclear and unallocated efforts attributed to the pursuit of erroneous and inappropriate discovery. There was significant time spent in review of moot concerns. There was duplication in undertaking, review of and editing of issues that did not direct themselves to probative outcomes of the lawsuit.

(Pl.'s Answer Pet. Sanctions at 3.) Plump also argues (without any verification or other factual support) that he is without funds to pay attorneys' fees as a sanction. ( Id. at 4.)

Contrary to Plump's argument, Kraft's statement of fees and costs is not unclear or unallocated. As directed by the October 6, 2003 order, the statement shows the date the work was performed, the time spent, the attorney performing the services and the applicable billing rate. The activities for which fees are sought are described in reasonable detail. As to Plump's argument that there was "erroneous and inappropriate discovery," the second session of Plump's deposition was unproductive because Plump failed to produce documents he had been ordered to produce pursuant to the May 15, 2003 order and refused to answer questions directed to the topics covered by that order. That is why Kraft was awarded its fees and costs.

In deciding how much Plump will be ordered to pay, it must be remembered that the amounts are being ordered as a sanction and, accordingly, the amount to be awarded must be "caused by the failure" of the other party to obey the previous order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 (d)(3): costs and attorneys' fees awarded are those incurred as a result of the frustration of fair deposition examination. Thus, time that may have been appropriately spent in order to represent the client might not necessarily qualify as time that can be reimbursed as a sanction. The fees awarded must also be reasonable. In this case, the fees shown on Kraft's statement for time spent by attorney Christy E. Phanthavong, the principal drafter of Kraft's motion and memoranda, in drafting those documents totals $3,587.40 ($1,584 for motion and memorandum (8 hours x $198) + $2,003.40 for reply brief (10.6 hours x $189)). However, the court concludes, in the interests of justice, that the amount sought for that activity is more than the court deems appropriate as a sanction in this situation, and reduces the amount to $1,500.00

Having reviewed Kraft's statement of fees and Plump's Answer which does not dispute any specific charge, rate or item, the court orders that Plump pay Kraft the following costs and fees pursuant to the October 6, 2003 order:

$483.00 for the court reporter's charge for appearance and transcript of Plump's deposition session on June 9, 2003;

$27.90 for photocopying charges:

$991.80 for half the time spent by attorney Mary Margaret Moore in preparing for the June 9, 2003 session of Plump's deposition and all the time spent by attorney Mary Margaret Moore in taking the June 9, 2003 session of Plump's deposition;

$1,500.00 for time spent by one attorney preparing, drafting and filing Kraft's motion for sanctions, the memorandum in support of that motion, and Kraft's reply brief; and

$658.80 for time spent by one attorney in appearing in court on Kraft's motion for sanctions on July 16, 2003, on Plump's motion for leave to file his response on August 22, 2003, and at the argument on Kraft's motion on September 19, 2003.

Thus, sanctions are to be paid by Plump to Kraft in a total amount of $3,661.50.That amount shall be paid by January 30, 2004.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF FEES AND COSTS

ATTORNEY RATES Rates from May 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003:

Partner: Mary Margaret Moore (MMM) $261.00/hr. Associate: Christy E. Phanthavong (CEP) $189.00/hr.

Rates Beginning July 1, 2003:

Partner: Mary Margaret Moore $270.00/hr. Associate: Christy E. Phanthavong $198.00/hr.

FEES Date Description Timekeeper Time Billed Amount

KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

_______________________________ One of Its Attorneys

Timothy C. Klenk Mary Margaret Moore Christy E. Phanthavong McGUIREWOODS LLP 150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 558-1000 — Telephone (312) 750-8600 — Facsimile