Cronick v. City of Colorado Springs, The, 1:20-cv-00457

Plaintiff Sasha Cronick filed a § 1983 claim following an altercation with Colorado Springs police, but the current dispute concerns sanctions arising from discovery noncompliance.
Defendants sought information from Ms. Cronick’s YouTube account, which she and her counsel refused to provide, first claiming irrelevance, then impossibility due to lack of access.
The Magistrate Judge and later the District Court found these excuses unsupported by the record, particularly given deposition evidence showing Ms. Cronick controlled the account.
Defendants sought and were awarded discovery sanctions (attorney’s fees and costs) against both Cronick and her counsel under Rule 37(b).
Cronick and her counsel objected, arguing lack of due process in sanctions and excessive redactions in the defendants’ fee application.
The Court reserved ruling on the amount/appropriateness of attorney’s fees, ordered defendants to refile less-redacted billing, and set an evidentiary hearing to apportion blame between Cronick and her attorneys.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process before Rule 37(b) sanctions	Counsel was sanctioned without specific notice or a chance to respond, violating due process.	Cronick and counsel had multiple warnings and opportunities to respond.	Court found notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate; due process was met.
Requirement for bad faith finding	Sanctions on counsel require a specific finding of bad faith or sole responsibility.	The legal standard does not require an explicit bad faith finding against counsel.	Court clarified previous orders and expressly found counsel’s actions were in bad faith; such explicit finding unnecessary.
Reasonableness of fee application	Redactions in defendants’ timesheet prevent assessment of reasonableness.	Claimed fees are reasonable, with necessary redactions.	Court agreed with Cronick; too much redaction to assess reasonableness; defendants must refile with greater detail.
Apportionment of sanctions	Fault should be appropriately divided between client and counsel.	Apportionment is for the Court to decide.	Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine respective culpability.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (counsel must exclude excessive or unnecessary hours from fee requests)
Malloy v. Monahan, 73 F.3d 1012 (reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing market rate in the relevant community)
Case v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, Johnson Cnty., Kan., 157 F.3d 1243 (fee applicant must submit detailed, contemporaneous time records)
Nelson v. City of Albuquerque, 800 F.3d 1219 (prevailing party’s counsel has obligation to ensure compliance with discovery orders)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (fee awards require sufficiently detailed billing to avoid windfalls)