NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To cited accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals

For Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois Submitted February ^[*] Decided February Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge No. ‐

PAUL SIMONS, Appeal United States District

Plaintiff Appellee Court Northern District Illinois, Eastern Division.

v .

JOSEPH FOX,

Defendant Appellant . Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

O R D E R appeal principally propriety litigant,

Joseph Fox. underlying suit, Paul Simons, former CEO Ditto Trade (a financial services firm) executive vice president Ditto Holdings (Ditto Trade’s holding company), pitted Ditto founder former CEO Holdings. sued firing uncovering violations corporate securities laws. then countersued defamation. Throughout acrimonious litigation, Fox asserted Simons lied in to destroy Fox’s companies. Rather than prove assertion with evidence tested in adversarial process, Fox obstructed Simons’s discovery. led to sanctions and dismissal Fox’s counterclaim. appeals orders leading up to dismissal. He presents persuasive reason to disturb judge’s fair and patient approach to managing case, so we affirm.

When discovery began in judge had allowed several to go forward. Simons had retaliatory discharge, wage withholding, and defamation. maintained counterclaim Simons defamation. (The corporate parties had counterclaims, too, they are irrelevant to appeal.) From outset discovery, repeatedly refused Simons’s requests. He did produce documents he possessed controlled, including documents he had cited in defamation counterclaim (such as letter containing Simons’s allegedly defamatory statements). Likewise he did produce relevant emails and text messages had both sent and received. also an uncooperative deponent. He scheduled two days depositions—one corporate representative and one as himself. stopped corporate deposition early and refused to return next day own deposition. To top off, violated orders. He disseminated information deposition in emails shareholders, even though protected by confidentiality order.

More difficulties ensued throughout next year, leading counterclaim. By November 2016—over year had begun—the attorneys who had represented companies had withdrawn, had obtained default companies. Now litigating defamation counterclaim pro se, still refused produce requested documents, even though judge directed least three separate so. Growing frustrated judge sanctioned him fine deposed. The fine approximately $45,000, reflecting reasonable attorneys’ fees. did pay, held contempt court, ordering him pay $500 every day remained contempt failing pay fine. explained patience had been “worn thin” “discovery obstructions dilatory tactics” violations orders. Yet paid nothing, contempt court. continued refuse turn documents tried litigate lawsuit through motions attorney motions “reconsider” imposed had then had enough. After asserted lacked funds pay fines, an alternative sanction. dismissed the defamation counterclaim as the sanction Fox’s unremediated obstruction.

At this point only remaining claims were original ones that Simons had brought against Fox. sought summary judgment on those claims. But Simons weary with litigating “vexatious” pro se litigant who still had not produced documents that were apparently within his control. So Simons voluntarily moved dismiss claims end case. granted Simons’s dismissed claims without prejudice, closed case.

Before addressing Fox’s appeal, we pause consider our jurisdiction. dismissal without prejudice, as occurred here with respect claims is not typically purposes appellate jurisdiction. Hernandez Dart But this case is typical, we have final, appealable order. seeking voluntary dismissal, stated that finished forever with side litigation. And already with prejudice on their various counterclaims. With nothing remaining, ruled that “terminated.” We thus “multiple indicia court finished case,” id 841. So our appellate jurisdiction is secure.

We turn merits. devotes almost half opening brief arguing based on lies. But contention requires evidence has been tested adversarial process. does evidence shunned adversarial process when ignored obligations. That why dismissed counterclaim. And does challenge dismissal, nor could he. reasonably dismissed Fox’s counterclaim as belligerence. By sit depositions, failing produce documents response orders, violating court’s orders, lost privilege litigate claim contentions “lies.” IV 37(b)(2)(A)(v); Domanus Lewicki 2014) (failure justify refusal sit produce documents supported dismissal as sanction). does challenge preceded dismissal. review those challenges. we are presented sanction, “we weigh straw finally broke camel’s back, all straws recalcitrant party piled course lawsuit.” Domanus (quoting e360 Insight, Spamhaus Project 2011)). challenges those earlier are all meritless. 17 ‐ 1012 4

Fox first argues that the judge should sanctioned for refusing attend depositions. We review imposition of that for abuse of discretion. See Collins v. Illinois , F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2009). argues that left depositions for a good reason. told judge that in middle of his deposition was notified that were closing needed attend closing business. The judge permissibly rejected excuse. The judge observed that “business” that referred involved filling out a short form. Moreover spent after leaving his writing an email tirade shareholders about Simons. Without giving any further specifics, repeats appeal left depositions for urgent business. conclusory assertions cannot overcome judge’s reasonable exercise of discretion in sanctioning leaving depositions. See id . 696–97 (refusal be deposed justified sanctions). next argues should granted motions reconsider sanctions We review judge’s denial of reconsideration abuse of discretion. See Wickens v. Shell Oil Co. , F.3d 747, (7th Cir. 2010). denied motions “untimely.” contends motions invoked Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) (6), which allow reconsideration of an within a year “fraud misrepresentation, misconduct an opposing party” or “any other reason justifies relief.” We need decide relevance Rule 60(b) pre judge’s ruling was in any event reasonable. bothered was inundating rehashed arguments already rejected about claims. A does abuse its discretion under rule reconsider already rejected contentions. See Karraker v. Rent Center, Inc. 831, (7th Cir. 2005). On appeal shifts new concern sanctions—his previous attorney’s performance responding them—but such arguments belong suit Simons. See Stanciel Gramley 2001). next contends improperly denied “out hand” own motions sanctions attorney their “perjury.” filed two these motions while case pending, third judgment. We review these denials abuse discretion. See Nemsky ConocoPhillips Co. find fault judge’s terse treatment motions, however. Cf. Katz Household Int’l, 1994) (“even perfunctory order” be sufficient if denial appropriate face record). While pending, explained arguments went merits, so they should brought substantive 17 1012 5 one summary judgment. persisted filing similar motion (the third one) judgment, told he would not consider motion it presented nothing new. approach was eminently reasonable. See Karraker, 411 F.3d 837. responds did move summary judgment, judge, argues,

wrongly allowed dismiss voluntarily claims end case, instead ruling which believes going win. Federal Rule Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows plaintiff dismiss voluntarily any time “on terms considers proper.” A defendant can prevent voluntary only showing “plain legal prejudice” will result. Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Tr. Co. , F.3d 924, (7th Cir. 2007). has shown this. Although is relevant moved summary judgment before dismissal, see Kunz v. DeFelice , 667, 677–78 (7th Cir. 2008), pendency motion is enough show prejudice, see Tyco Laboratories, Koppers Company, Inc. 54, 1980). At dismissal, contempt court, showed prospect respecting long ignored obligations. reasonably demand compliance before considering motion summary judgment. See IV 16(e), (f); 56(d)(2); Grayson O’Neill 2002). therefore cannot show prejudice allowing dismiss voluntarily end case. has one last argument warrants brief discussion. contends biased should disqualified himself. support puts forth contention is ruled Judicial rulings, even those “are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to” party, constitute valid basis disqualification except “rarest circumstances” which “deep seated favoritism or antagonism” makes fair judgment impossible. Liteky United States U.S. (1994); see re City Milwaukee has shown inappropriate favoritism antagonism here. considered arguments, none discussion. Accordingly judgment is AFFIRMED, motion stay enforcement money DENIED.

[*] agreed decide without oral argument briefs record adequately present facts legal arguments, oral argument would significantly aid court. PP 34(a)(2)(C).