Scott Ex Rel. Estate of Scott v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16185

This federal case arises from a dispute over two sisters’ parents’ estate and their trusts; Minor Scott, as personal representative of Maureen’s estate, sues Chuhak & Tecson (C&T) and two C&T attorneys for breach of fiduciary duty in estate-planning.
Diane Shah, a C&T client, was sued in state court; a protective order governed discovery to protect privileged attorney–client communications between Diane and C&T from disclosure in the state litigation.
The district court issued a protective order, denied production of certain documents, and later sanctioned the estate for violating the order when privileged documents were shared with Fleming, who represented the state-case against Diane.
C&T moved for summary judgment on the estate’s claims regarding four trusts: MGT, RGT, RWT, and RWT II; the court granted summary judgment on RGT, RWT, RWT II, and on MGT’s damages/duty elements after ruling Maureen could not have been harmed by information about MGT.
The estate’s appeals included sanctions, summary judgment, dismissal of certain claims, and denial of its motions to compel; the Seventh Circuit affirmed all challenged orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sanctions for discovery violations were proper	Estate argues the order was overbroad and punitive.	C&T argues the protective order limited disclosure and sanction was appropriate.	Sanctions affirmed; violation of the order justifies early closing of discovery.
Summary judgment on RGT, RWT, RWT II, and MGT damages	Estate claims breach of duty and damages from C&T’s non-disclosure.	No triable issue on breach or damages after undisputed facts; summary judgment proper.	Affirmed for RGT, RWT, RWT II; and affirmed on MGT for lack of damages.
Interference with the gift plan and punitive damages	C&T interfered with Ruth’s gift plan; punitive damages should be available.	Gift-plan claim beyond scope of representation; punitive damages barred in legal malpractice.	Gift-plan claim dismissed; punitive damages denied.
Motion to compel metadata and related discovery	Estate seeks metadata and other documents to support its claims.	District court properly denied due to privilege concerns and scope.	Denied; district court did not abuse discretion.

Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2003) (discovery sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion; must show willfulness or fault)
Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of U.S., 406 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2005) (sanctions require fault or bad faith)
Fox v. Seiden, 887 N.E.2d 736 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (elements of legal-malpractice claim in Illinois; duty, breach, causation, damages)
Porter v. City of Chicago, 700 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard; no genuine disputes of material fact)
Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2001) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals; plausible claim standard)
Cripe v. Leiter, 683 N.E.2d 516 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (punitive damages not allowed in legal malpractice cases; distinguishes fraud)
Owens v. McDermott, Will & Emery, 736 N.E.2d 145 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (Illinois standard for professional duty and malpractice damages)
Bastian v. Petren Res. Corp., 892 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1990) (frames concerns about waiver and amended complaints)
Pirant v. U.S. Postal Service, 542 F.3d 202 (7th Cir. 2008) (effects of amended complaints on surviving claims)
Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1996) (district court best positioned to decide discovery scope; abuse standard)
Sere v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 852 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1988) (appellate briefing requirements; issue preservation)