Solomon v. Wardlaw Claim Service, LLC
4:17-cv-00092
| N.D. Ind. | May 18, 2018Background
- Non-party Indiana Department of Workforce Development (IDWD) moved to quash a subpoena and notice of deposition by written questions issued by defendant Wardlaw Claim Service, LLC, asserting confidentiality and privilege and alleging procedural defects.
- Wardlaw opposed the motion and requested attorney fees in its response; IDWD did not reply to that filing.
- IDWD then withdrew its motion to quash and tendered the requested documents to Wardlaw on March 19, 2018.
- Wardlaw argued that withdrawal and late compliance did not moot its request for sanctions and sought fees under various federal rules and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
- The court noted Wardlaw had not filed a separate motion for sanctions, treated fee requests in the response as procedurally improper, and briefly addressed merits of sanction arguments.
- The court found no basis to award sanctions: Rule 37 fees were not properly sought via motion to compel, Rule 45 argument was waived for lack of development, and § 1927 sanctions were unwarranted absent evidence of bad faith or reckless conduct. The motion to quash was ordered withdrawn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena should be quashed for confidentiality/privilege and procedural defects | IDWD: subpoena required disclosure of confidential/privileged information and had procedural defects | Wardlaw: opposed quash; sought documents and fees | Court accepted IDWD's withdrawal; motion to quash withdrawn after documents tendered |
| Whether Wardlaw is entitled to attorney's fees under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) | IDWD implicitly: not directly addressed after withdrawal | Wardlaw: seeks mandatory fees because disclosure occurred only after motion was filed | Denied as procedurally improper—Wardlaw did not file a motion to compel or a separate fee motion; court declined to award fees on that basis |
| Whether Rule 45(g) sanctions are warranted for defiance of a subpoena | IDWD: no sanction claim pursued after withdrawal | Wardlaw: contends defiance warrants sanctions | Court found argument waived for lack of development and did not award sanctions |
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions are appropriate against IDWD's counsel | IDWD: no showing of bad faith or reckless conduct | Wardlaw: requests § 1927 sanctions for multiplying proceedings | Court declined § 1927 sanctions—no evidence of objectively unreasonable, reckless, or bad-faith conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Stookey v. Teller Training Distribs., Inc., 9 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 1993) (Rule 37 permits awarding fees for expenses incurred obtaining an order to compel)
- Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Midwest Motor Express, Inc., 181 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1999) (arguments not meaningfully developed are waived)
- Jolly Group, Ltd. v. Medline Indus., Inc., 435 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2006) (standards for imposing § 1927 sanctions for objectively unreasonable attorney conduct)
- Corley v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc. of Peoria, 388 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2004) (§ 1927 sanctions are discretionary, not mandatory)
- Pacific Dunlop Holdings, Inc. v. Barosh, 22 F.3d 113 (7th Cir. 1994) (§ 1927 requires extremely negligent or reckless conduct for sanctions)