763 F.3d 488
6th Cir.2014Background
- McCarthy sued API and AT&T for retaliation and related claims stemming from August 2008 termination.
- During litigation, McCarthy served multiple RFAs; API denied RFA No. 10 about retirement health benefits.
- API later produced an August 2008 email showing McCarthy was eligible for retirement healthcare benefits, undermining its denial.
- District court sanctioned API and AT&T in part under Rule 37(c)(2) for inaccurate responses and awarded McCarthy $15,313.11.
- McCarthy sought fees for preparing and presenting the sanctions motion; API cross-appealed the sanctions propriety.
- The court remanded to recalculate the attorney’s fees under Rule 37(c)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions under Rule 37(c)(2) were proper. | McCarthy argues API’s denial to admit RFA 10 misled and that sanctions were proper. | API contends sanctions were inappropriate or limited to proof costs only. | Sanctions proper for proof and substantial importance. |
| Whether McCarthy may recover fees for preparing the fee application under Rule 37(c)(2). | McCarthy should recover fees incurred in presenting the fee motion. | API argues those fees are not recoverable under Rule 37(c)(2). | Rule 37(c)(2) fees for fee-application preparation may be recovered. |
| Whether the district court erred in limiting the sanctions to certain RFAs while others were deemed non-sanctionable. | McCarthy’s sanctions related to multiple misrepresentations; scope should be broader. | API contends only some RFAs warranted sanctions. | No clear abuse; sanctions upheld in part and reversed in part. |
| Whether McCarthy preserved arguments about fees incurred after API’s August 2012 private acknowledgment. | McCarthy sought those fees as part of the appeal. | Issue not preserved under Rule 28(a)(5). | McCarthy forfeited this aspect; not reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beil v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 15 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 37 sanctions)
- Johnson Int’l Co. v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 812 F. Supp. 966 (D. Neb. 1993) (sanctions when adverse party concedes later; who proves the fact)
- In re Stauffer Seeds, Inc., 817 F.2d 47 (8th Cir. 1987) (extension of Rule 37(c)(2) to fee-application costs)
- Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006) (awarding fees for time spent on sanctions motions)
- Wash. State Dep’t of Transp. v. Wash. Natural Gas Co., 59 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1995) (materiality and importance of disputed facts in Rule 37 context)