316 F. Supp. 3d 1044
E.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (carpenters' union trust funds) allege defendant employer failed to make required ERISA/Taft-Hartley contributions for ~30 carpenters over varying periods based on an audit.
- Plaintiffs served extensive discovery: 345 requests to admit (with subparts), interrogatories, and document requests covering individual carpenters' hours and contribution records.
- Defendant moved to quash/limit the discovery as unduly burdensome; defendant's company and its owner were largely uncooperative earlier in the litigation (late counsel retention, defaults, missed hearings).
- Judge found records of hours worked and amounts reported to trust funds are central and relevant to plaintiffs’ claims and defendant’s defenses.
- The court criticized the parties’ meet-and-confer efforts as inadequate and instructed them to negotiate a reasonable discovery plan, denying defendant’s motion without prejudice.
- Court warned that continued obstruction will not be tolerated and that fee-shifting or other sanctions are available for discovery abuses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs' broad discovery requests are permissible and relevant | Requests seek core records (hours worked, amounts reported) necessary to prove delinquencies | Requests are onerous, duplicative, and unduly burdensome given scope and form | Requests are relevant; discovery must proceed; motion to quash denied without prejudice |
| Whether defendant’s prior litigation conduct affects discovery obligations | Plaintiffs argue recalcitrance justifies aggressive discovery | Defendant argues volume is excessive and burdensome despite earlier delays | Court noted defendant’s earlier obstruction produced current situation and expects cooperation going forward |
| Adequacy of parties’ meet-and-confer under Local Rule 37.2 | Plaintiffs refused to withdraw requests; position was defended | Defendant claims it attempted to resolve dispute but relied on ultimatums | Court found the confer was cursory and not in good faith; ordered genuine negotiations |
| Whether court will tolerate continued obstruction and permit sanctions | Plaintiffs seek enforcement and possible fee-shifting for wasted efforts | Defendant warns of burden; seeks relief from discovery scope | Court warned of sanctions and fee-shifting for abuses; denied motion but left door open to refiling if parties fail to truly negotiate |
Key Cases Cited
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir.) (discovery relevance and scope principles)
- Sambrano v. Mabus, 663 F.3d 879 (7th Cir.) (sanctions and fee-shifting to redress discovery abuses)
- Rickels v. City of South Bend, 33 F.3d 785 (7th Cir.) (the loser-pays principle in discovery disputes)
- Kuttner v. Zaruba, 819 F.3d 970 (7th Cir.) (district court’s broad discretion over discovery rulings)
- U.S. v. Re, 401 F.3d 828 (7th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of discovery rulings)