Alberth v. Southern Lakes Plumbing & Heating Inc, 2:19-cv-00062

Plaintiff Raymond Alberth sued Southern Lakes Plumbing & Heating, Inc. and Scott Plucinski under ERISA and filed a summary-judgment motion with a supporting declaration.
The declaration (Docket #22) included unredacted personal identifying information (SSNs, dates of birth, bank account and insurance policy numbers) for Alberth, defendant Plucinski, and third parties.
Defendants moved for sanctions and to withdraw the declaration from the record on December 16, 2019.
On the same day, Alberth’s counsel moved to seal the unredacted filing and to replace it with a redacted version; the court granted those motions and counsel also notified affected individuals.
The court found a Rule 5.2 violation but concluded the disclosure was a genuine, promptly remedied mistake rather than bad faith, denied sanctions and withdrawal, and cautioned counsel that future violations could lead to sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s filing of unredacted PII violates Rule 5.2 and warrants sanctions	The filing was a mistake, promptly remedied; counsel notified affected parties	Rule 5.2 was violated; sanctions needed to deter and compensate	Violation found but unintentional; no sanctions imposed
Whether the declaration must be withdrawn from the record	Counsel moved to seal and filed a redacted replacement immediately	Request withdrawal of the entire declaration from the record	Denied: unredacted versions are sealed and redacted versions filed
Whether additional relief (notification, credit monitoring, fees) is required	Counsel already notified individuals and offered to address harm	Seek individualized credit reports/monitoring, notification, fees, dismissal of MSJ	Denied: remediation sufficient; defendants should have tried to resolve before moving for sanctions

Cree, Inc. v. BHP Energy Mexico S. De R.L. De C.V., 335 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (E.D. Wis. 2018) (discussing court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions)
Ramirez v. T & H Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 2016) (inherent-authority sanctions require willfulness or bad faith)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (foundational Supreme Court authority on inherent sanctioning power)
Fuery v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2018) (mere clumsy lawyering does not establish bad faith for sanctions)
Montano v. City of Chi., 535 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2008) (sanctions must be proportionate to the offense)
Allen v. Chi. Transit Auth., 317 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2003) (discussing proportionality in imposing sanctions)