343 F. Supp. 3d 742
E.D. Ill.2018Background
- Capital Premium moved to compel BankDirect to produce documents responsive to Requests No. 28 (ratios of revenue/loan volume/profits attributable to Capital Premium relationship) and No. 29 (BankDirect audited financial statements 2010–present).
- The discovery dispute originates from December 2017 after extensive, contentious discovery in the case; fact discovery closed November 15.
- Capital Premium did not provide the required Local Rule 37.2 certification showing an in-person or telephonic good-faith meet-and-confer; parties appear to have exchanged only emails/letters.
- BankDirect informed Capital Premium on November 21 that it has no audited financial statements (no documents responsive to Request No. 29) and offered to produce the ratios requested in Request No. 28 if Capital Premium would withdraw the motion to compel.
- Capital Premium declined the offer and proceeded with the motion. The magistrate judge found that BankDirect’s objections were boilerplate and that the ratios are relevant to Capital Premium’s damages claim under the Marketing Collaboration Agreement.
- The court denied the motion as to Request No. 28 but ordered BankDirect to immediately produce the ratios it had agreed to produce in the November 21 email; Request No. 29 required no production because no audited statements exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Local Rule 37.2 meet-and-confer | Capital Premium proceeded with motion after communications (implicitly sufficient) | BankDirect contends parties only exchanged emails/letters and no certification exists | Court found Capital Premium failed to satisfy Local Rule 37.2 (no certification; letters/emails insufficient) but resolved dispute on merits because parties’ email clarified positions |
| Request No. 29 (audited financial statements exist?) | Seeks BankDirect audited statements 2010–present as relevant | BankDirect objected; said not relevant and not required by contract | Court accepted BankDirect’s representation that no audited financial statements exist, so no production is possible |
| Request No. 28 (ratios: relevance/proportionality) | Ratios are relevant to Capital Premium’s damages claim for alleged marketing failures | BankDirect objected as not relevant and invoked pre-2015 "reasonably calculated" standard and contractual limits | Court rejected BankDirect’s boilerplate objections, found ratios relevant and proportional, and ordered immediate production of the ratios it agreed to provide |
| Sanctions/costs for discovery conduct | Capital Premium sought relief via motion to compel; did not request fees here | BankDirect argued objections justified; court noted both sides’ conduct | Court criticized both parties’ conduct: denied Capital Premium’s motion on procedural grounds but ordered production; suggested sanctions could be appropriate in such needless disputes though none imposed here |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Observer, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 929 F.2d 325 (7th Cir. 1991) (litigation costs and docket congestion justify discouraging needless disputes)
- Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015) (public should not subsidize needless discovery disputes)
- Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2003) (court may impose fees for abusive discovery conduct)
- Wallace v. Colvin, 193 F. Supp. 3d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (district court authority to sanction for discovery misconduct)
- Chicago Reg'l Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Celtic Floor Covering, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 1044 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (good-faith meet-and-confer requires meaningful negotiation; ultimatums are insufficient)