Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc. et al

Filing 171

ORDER denying 139 Motion for Attorney Fees by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 01/17/14.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01229-REB-BNB
CELESTE SHAW, and
JUDITH VERHEECKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERTHINX, INC., a California corporation,
VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
JEFFREY MOYER, an individual,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on Plaintiff Celeste Shaw’s Motion for Reasonable Expenses [Doc.
# 139, filed 11/22/2013] (the “Motion for Expenses”), which is DENIED.
On November 1, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order, to Compel
Return of Documents, and for Sanctions [Doc. # 128] (the “Motion for Sanctions”). Generally,
the Motion for Sanctions argued that the plaintiffs took Interthinx’s confidential documents and
improperly disclosed them to plaintiffs’ lawyers for use in this action. Interthinx characterized
the conduct as “self-help” discovery and sought the imposition of severe sanctions.
I held a hearing on the Motion for Sanctions and found that the documents which
Interthinx had identified as being improperly disclosed to the plaintiffs’ counsel were neither
confidential nor entitled to protection under any contract or the law. Consequently, I denied the
Motion for Sanctions. I did not find that the Motion for Sanctions was meritless, however. To
the contrary, although I did not grant the Motion for Sanctions, I find that it was substantially

justified.
An award of sanctions to the prevailing party under Rule 37 is required unless the court
finds that the conduct of the party against which the award is sought was “substantially justified
or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B).
Because the positions taken by Interthinx in connection with the Motion for Sanctions, although
ultimately unsuccessful, were substantially justified, the award of expenses in defending against
that motion is not justified.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Expenses [Doc. # 139] is DENIED
Dated January 17, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2