Houston v. C.G. Security Services, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7473
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Angel Houston sued Hyatt and later added C.G. Security Services after she fell at a Hyatt New Year’s Eve party, alleging inadequate security caused her injuries.
- Houston served discovery, including a non-party subpoena on C.G.; C.G. delayed searching for and producing documents and repeatedly changed or gave evasive testimony about security personnel.
- Houston filed three motions for sanctions against C.G. for discovery misconduct; the district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
- The magistrate judge found a pattern of bad-faith discovery conduct (false testimony, document falsification, impeding depositions) and recommended monetary sanctions (attorney’s fees).
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report after de novo review, granted summary judgment for C.G. on liability but withheld final judgment pending sanctions, and awarded Houston $118,925.00 in attorney’s fees and $16,498.91 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions should be imposed for discovery misconduct | C.G. engaged in bad-faith discovery (false testimony, document issues, obstruction) warranting sanctions | Sanctions improper because Houston failed to follow meet-and-confer procedural prerequisites and misconduct was mere poor record-keeping | Sanctions upheld: court found Houston met conferral requirements and evidence supported bad faith; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether one discovery conference satisfied local meet-and-confer rules | May rely on May 2013 conference plus emails/calls given C.G.’s obstruction | One conference insufficient; Houston should have requested another and certified efforts | Held for Houston: court found counsel made reasonable efforts and C.G. rebuffed conferral attempts |
| Whether misconduct was only inadvertence (insufficient for sanctions) | Misconduct went beyond inadvertence—delays, failures to respond, false/evasive testimony | Argued mistakes/poor record-keeping not sanctionable bad faith | Held for Houston: record showed bad faith conduct, not merely sloppy record-keeping |
| Whether the fee award was reasonable in amount and scope | Fees reflect discovery-related work; court excluded unrelated entries and used reasonable $250/hr rate | Fee petition overbilled, contained unrelated time blocks, and sought excessive amount | Held for Houston: district court properly applied lodestar, excluded unrelated hours, approved rate and award; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ordower v. Feldman, 826 F.2d 1569 (7th Cir. 1987) (review standards for factual findings and abuse-of-discretion on sanctions)
- Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., 319 F.3d 307 (7th Cir. 2003) (lodestar as starting point for fee awards)
- Marrocco v. Gen. Motors Corp., 966 F.2d 220 (7th Cir. 1992) (review of fee awards for abuse of discretion)
- Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc. of Peoria, 388 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2004) (sanctions inappropriate absent bad faith or improper purpose)