Parker v. Four Seasons Hotels, Ltd.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64044
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Negligence suit arising from a sliding glass door injury at Four Seasons hotel; plaintiff, pro se, pursued extensive post-state discovery after refiling in 2012.
- Court’s September 28, 2012 order limited discovery to new or unrecovered issues and required production of specific documents; declined broad inspection of 30 rooms.
- Plaintiff ignored the September Order, pursued numerous subpoenas and room inspections, and faced sanctions threats.
- Discovery closed March 31, 2013; Defendant and third parties moved to quash or protect against further discovery outside the September Order.
- Motions include: Four Seasons’ quash/protective order/sanctions; 900 Venture’s quash; Pat Meara’s quash; Gates’ quash; Plaintiffs sanctions and reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant in part the defendant’s quash/protective order. | Plaintiff seeks extensive punitive-damages related discovery. | Requests exceed September Order; burden excessive; some requests irrelevant. | Granted in part and denied in part. |
| Whether third-party subpoenas should be quashed. | Subpoenas necessary for punitive-damages evidence. | Some subpoenas exceed scope or improper; some outside court’s subpoena power. | Quashed DeFily subpoena; other non-parties overruled; some quashes denied. |
| Whether plaintiff’s conduct warrants sanctions. | Procedural missteps not sanctions-worthy. | Noncompliance with September Order and rules warrants sanctions. | Sanctions denied for sanctions, but future misconduct warned. |
| Whether to grant reconsideration of prior orders. | Extend discovery and alter admissions/deems. | Earlier rulings properly limited scope and procedures. | Grant in part; vacate deemed-admitted ruling; deny others; extend discovery denied. |
| Whether to allow deponents by defendant (treating physicians/experts) deposition. | Defendant should be barred from deposing; rights violated. | Defendant allowed to depose if timely; issue not improper. | Defendant’s ability to depose remains; order to complete within 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc., 347 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2003) (relevance of regulatory/penal context to punitive damages)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1998) (corporate veil and parent-subsidiary liability principles)