Craftwood Lumber Company v. Interline Brands, Inc., a Delaware corp.
1:11-cv-04462
N.D. Ill.Aug 29, 2013Background
- Craftwood sued Interline under the Junk Fax Act alleging ~1,500 advertising fax transmissions and sought class certification; PEP (prior express permission) and EBR (established business relationship) are Interline's primary defenses.
- Craftwood served interrogatories and document requests in Aug 2011; Interline provided tables listing transmissions (with source codes) but did not identify recipient names/numbers or specific persons who gave PEP.
- Craftwood repeatedly asked for verified supplemental responses identifying recipients with PEP/EBR; Interline promised supplements multiple times but produced incomplete, unverified responses and limited anecdotal customer IDs.
- Court ordered production of all outstanding discovery by Oct 12, 2012; Interline produced nothing by that date and delivered partial, unsigned supplemental responses only after the deadline.
- Craftwood moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and (d); Court found willful/faulty noncompliance and granted sanctions tailored to the withheld discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Interline violated the court's Sept. 12 discovery order to produce outstanding discovery by Oct. 12, 2012 | Interline failed to produce promised supplemental, verified discovery identifying PEP/EBR recipients by the deadline | Interline contends it had produced what it reasonably understood the court ordered and disputed scope/burden of further production | Court: Interline disobeyed the order; produced nothing by the deadline and its post-deadline production was incomplete and unverified |
| Whether sanctions under Rule 37 are appropriate (willfulness/bad faith/fault) | Sanctions necessary because Interline repeatedly ignored requests and court order, prejudicing Craftwood's class-certification preparation | Interline argued confusion over what was outstanding and burden of recipient-by-recipient analysis; urged motion be treated as motion to compel instead of immediate sanction | Court found willfulness/bad faith and fault; Interline could/should have sought court relief if it believed production was improper |
| Appropriate scope of sanctions (preclusion vs lesser sanctions) | Preclusion of PEP and EBR defenses is proportionate and tailored given discovery withheld directly related to those defenses | Preclusion would be extreme and effectively decide class-certification in plaintiff's favor | Court imposed preclusion as tailored sanction: Interline barred from asserting PEP/EBR or offering related evidence; other defenses not barred |
| Award of expenses and fees for motion practice | Craftwood sought reasonable fees and expenses incurred in bringing the sanctions motion | Interline did not dispute entitlement to some fees but challenged sanctions severity | Court ordered Interline and its counsel to pay Craftwood's reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees under Rule 37(b)(2)(C) and directed Local Rule 54.3 procedures for fee agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) SAL, 729 F.2d 469 (7th Cir. 1984) (courts may impose sanctions without formal motion to compel when party had notice and failed to comply)
- Melendez v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 79 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 1996) (Rule 37 sanctions appropriate upon finding willfulness, bad faith, or fault)
- Marrocco v. General Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 220 (7th Cir. 1992) (distinguishing willfulness, bad faith, and fault standards)
- Charter House Ins. Brokers, Ltd. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1981) (party cannot rely on unilateral interpretation of discovery obligations; failing to seek court clarification is sanctionable)
- In re Golant, 239 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2001) (sanction choice must be proportionate; reasonable jurist standard)