Kirk v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc.
3:13-cv-05032
W.D. Mo.Jan 26, 2015Background
- Plaintiff sought to move an expert deposition from Clinton Township, Michigan to Independence, Missouri five days before the scheduled date.
- Defendants agreed to the change on condition that Plaintiff reimburse any additional travel expenses; Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to reimburse "up to $1,100."
- Defendants produced documentation showing $1,023.63 in extra travel costs for defense counsel Gary Roberts to change flights/hotel.
- At the deposition Plaintiff’s counsel loudly refused to pay, accused defense counsel of dishonesty, and threatened to end the deposition unless a Kansas City defense attorney left; the deposition proceeded with defense counsel present.
- Defendants moved for sanctions seeking $1,023.63 and attorneys’ fees for bringing the motion; the court found it had inherent authority to police counsel conduct and enforce agreements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of reimbursement agreement | McClain: he agreed to pay only if there was no cost savings and did not agree to reimburse if Kansas City attorneys attended | Defs: Parties agreed Plaintiff would reimburse up to $1,100 for additional travel costs; no condition barring KC attorneys attending | Court: Agreement was enforceable; Plaintiff breached by failing to pay $1,023.63 |
| Whether relocating deposition saved Defendants money | McClain: moving the deposition gave Defs time to change plans and could save costs (no extra expense) | Defs: Change increased Roberts’ travel costs by $1,023.63; KC attorneys attending did not negate that expense | Court: No evidence Defs saved money; moving deposition did cause the extra expense and Roberts would have taken the deposition regardless |
| Whether Defs misrepresented attendance to induce the change | McClain: Defs represented Wade/Greg would not attend and thus agreed to reimburse only in certain circumstances | Defs: They said Wade/Wolf were not attending the Detroit deposition, not that they wouldn’t attend if location changed to Independence | Court: No misrepresentation—statements referred to attendance in Michigan, not at the new location |
| Sanctions for counsel misconduct and fees award authority | McClain: accuses Defs of dishonest litigation; resists paying and challenges sanction request | Defs: Seek reimbursement and attorneys’ fees for motion; request court enforce agreement and police uncivil conduct | Court: Under its inherent authority the court granted sanctions—ordered counsel to reimburse reasonable attorneys’ fees for bringing the motion and directed fee submissions/procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (courts possess inherent powers to manage affairs and sanction misconduct)
- Wescott Agri-Products, Inc. v. Sterling State Bank, Inc., 682 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing district court inherent authority and policing lawyer conduct)
- Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 560 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (authority to promote civility and collegiality among counsel)