Summary
awarding monetary damages, treble damages, attorneys fees, and costs after defendant failed to respond to plaintiff's summary judgment motion
Summary of this case from Bulk Express, Inc. v. Dwyer (N.D.Ind. 2005)Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:04cv118.
March 28, 2005
OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on the motion filed March 9, 2005, by the Plaintiff (DE # 109) seeking attorney's fees following a successful motion to compel. No response by the Defendant has been filed. After considering the Motion, the Court finds that the Motion for Attorney's Fees should be GRANTED.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2004, Plaintiff served its Second Request for Production to Defendant. Responses to the Second Request for Production were originally due on December 8, 2004. At the request of the Defendant's former counsel, the Plaintiff orally agreed to give the Defendant an extension of time until December 24, 2004 to answer the requests.
On December 16, 2004, all proceedings in the case were stayed until January 17, 2005, to allow the Defendant time to secure new counsel. This effectively gave the Defendant a further extension to January 17, 2005, to respond to the requests. The Defendant has failed to either provide responses to the Plaintiff's Second Request for Production, or to produce the documents responsive to the requests.
Thus, Plaintiff was forced to file a Motion to Compel for an order compelling Defendant to produce documents responsive to the Second Request for Production, which the Court granted on February 24, 2005. The present motion, supported by the affidavit of attorney Allen, seeks $1224 in fees for the Motion to Compel.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 37(a)(4) governs the imposition of expenses and sanctions related to a motion to compel. It provides, in pertinent part:
(A) If the motion is granted . . . the court shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds . . . that the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified, or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
* * *
(C) If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court . . . may, after affording an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). This Rule "presumptively requires every loser to make good the victor's costs." Rickels v. City of South Bend, 33 F.3d 785, 786 (7th Cir. 1994). Such fee-shifting "encourages . . . voluntary resolution" of discovery disputes and "curtails the ability of litigants to use legal processes to heap detriments on adversaries (or third parties) without regard to the merits of the claims." Id. at 787. Accordingly, "the loser pays" unless he establishes "that his position was substantially justified." Id. at 786-87.
IV. DISCUSSION
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the Defendant must pay attorney fees to the Plaintiff, as it makes no effort to show that its position was substantially justified. The amount of reasonable fees is governed by the well-known "lodestar" method. E.g., People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 90 F.3d 1307, 1310 (7th Cir. 1996); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-37 (1983). Under this method, the court first determines the "lodestar" by multiplying the hours reasonably expended on the case by a reasonable hourly rate. People Who Care, 90 F.3d at 1310. The court may then adjust this award based on various factors, see id. at 1310 n. 1, the "most critical" of which is the degree of success obtained by the movant, Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436. The movant bears the initial burden of documenting its fees to the satisfaction of the court; once it has done so, those fees are presumptively appropriate unless challenged by the opposing party. Tomazzoli v. Sheedy, 804 F.2d 93, 96 (7th Cir. 1986).
Here, both the hours expended by attorney Allen (4.8 hours) and the hourly rate ($255 per hour) are reasonable, yielding a total award of $1224. The Court will enter an order accordingly.
THEREFORE, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS Defendant Victory Components, Inc. to pay Parallax Power Supply, LLC's attorney's fees in brining its Motion to Compel and Motion for Attorney's Fees in the amount of $1,224.00.