Paul Simons v. Joseph Fox, 17-1012

Paul Simons, former CEO/executive of Ditto entities, sued Joseph Fox for retaliatory discharge, wage withholding, and defamation; Fox counterclaimed for defamation.
During discovery Fox repeatedly refused to produce documents and communications he controlled, and left/avoided depositions; he also disseminated protected deposition material in violation of a confidentiality order.
Fox’s counsel withdrew; Fox proceeded pro se and continued to ignore court-ordered discovery; the district court imposed monetary sanctions (attorney’s fees ~ $45,000) and contempt fines when he failed to pay.
Fox persisted in obstructive tactics, filed repeated motions (including motions to sanction Simons), and did not remediate discovery violations.
The district court entered an alternative sanction dismissing Fox’s defamation counterclaim for unremedied discovery abuse; Simons voluntarily dismissed his remaining claims and the case was closed.
Fox appealed; the Seventh Circuit found the district court had jurisdiction and affirmed the sanctions and dismissal as within the court’s discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of Fox’s defamation counterclaim as a sanction was proper	Simons argued dismissal was warranted after Fox repeatedly ignored discovery and court orders	Fox argued he had defenses and evidence (claimed Simons lied) and that dismissal was inappropriate	Affirmed: dismissal proper under Rule 37 for repeated failure to comply with discovery orders (Domanus precedent)
Whether sanctions for refusing deposition were proper	Sanctions necessary to compel discovery and compensate for obstruction	Fox claimed he had an urgent business reason for leaving the deposition	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; Fox’s excuse was rejected as unsupported (Collins standard)
Whether district court abused discretion in denying motions for reconsideration	Motions were untimely and rehashed rejected arguments; reconsideration unwarranted	Fox invoked Rule 60(b) and alleged need for reconsideration	Affirmed: denial reasonable; court may refuse to revisit previously rejected contentions (Karraker)
Whether voluntary dismissal by Simons unfairly prevented adjudication (prejudice to Fox)	Simons chose dismissal to end vexatious litigation; district court could condition dismissal	Fox argued pending summary judgment and that dismissal prejudiced his defense	Affirmed: no plain legal prejudice shown; Fox’s contempt and noncompliance negate prejudice argument (Rule 41(a)(2) standard)

Hernandez v. Dart, 814 F.3d 836 (jurisdictional indicia for finality of dismissal)
Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290 (failure to attend deposition/produce documents can justify dismissal as sanction)
e360 Insight, Inc. v. Spamhaus Project, 658 F.3d 637 (weigh cumulative discovery abuses when reviewing dismissal)
Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693 (standard for sanctions for refusal to be deposed)
Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747 (review of denial of reconsideration)
Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831 (district court may refuse to reconsider previously rejected arguments)
Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575 (limits on bringing certain claims in collateral context)
Nemsky v. ConocoPhillips Co., 574 F.3d 859 (review standard for denial of sanctions)
Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Tr. Co., 477 F.3d 924 (standard for preventing voluntary dismissal due to defendant prejudice)
Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d 667 (relevance of a pending dispositive motion to prejudice inquiry)
Tyco Laboratories, Inc. v. Koppers Co., 627 F.2d 54 (pendency of motion alone insufficient to show prejudice)
Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808 (trial court may require discovery compliance before considering summary judgment)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings do not alone establish bias/disqualification)
In re City of Milwaukee, 788 F.3d 717 (standards for judicial disqualification)