Lozier v. Quincy University Corporation et al

Filing 139

OPINION AND ORDER entered by Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge on 10/6/2023: Counter Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (d/e 123 ) is GRANTED, Counter Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of the Motion to Compel (d/e 125 ) is denied as MOOT, Counter Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of the Motion to Reopen Discovery (d/e 137 ) is denied as MOOT, the Parties' Motions for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (d/e 126 , 131 , 135 ) are GRANTED. Last, Counter Defendant's Motion to Reopen Discovery (d/e 129 ), which also requests a continuance of the trial setting, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. (MJC)

3:18-cv-03077-SEM-KLM # 139

Filed: 10/06/23

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DANIEL R. LOZIER, II,
Counter Defendant,
v.
BRIAN HOLZGRAFE,
Counter Plaintiff.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-3077

OPINION AND ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Before the Court is a Motion to Compel filed by Counter Plaintiff
Holzgrafe (d/e 123), Counter Defendant Lozier’s Response (d/e 124),
Counter Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of the
Motion to Compel (d/e 125), Counter Defendant Lozier’s Motion for
Leave to File Document Under Seal and his proposed Motion in
Limine (d/e 126, 127), Counter Defendant’s Motion to Reopen
Discovery (d/e 129), Counter Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Reopen
Discovery (d/e 134), Counter Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal (d/e 131, 135), and Counter Defendant’s

Page 1 of 6

3:18-cv-03077-SEM-KLM # 139

Filed: 10/06/23

Page 2 of 6

Motion for Leave to File Reply as to the Motion to Reopen Discovery
(d/e 137).
For the following reasons, Counter Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
(d/e 123) is GRANTED, Counter Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Reply in Support of the Motion to Compel (d/e 125) is denied as
MOOT, Counter Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support
of the Motion to Reopen Discovery (d/e 137) is denied as MOOT, the
Parties’ Motions for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (d/e 126,
131, 135) are GRANTED. Last, Counter Defendant’s Motion to
Reopen Discovery (d/e 129), which also requests a continuance of
the trial setting, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I.

COUNTER PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Counter Plaintiff Holzgrafe filed a Motion to Compel, seeking
“financial information” from Counter Defendant Lozier which was
previously requested in written discovery in March 2023. (d/e 123).
Specifically, Holzgrafe is requesting various information including
but not limited to: financial assets, places of employment, tax
information, starting and ending job salaries, financial accounts,
personal property values, among other items. (d/e 123, Ex. B). There
Page 2 of 6

3:18-cv-03077-SEM-KLM # 139

Filed: 10/06/23

Page 3 of 6

is no dispute that the discovery requests were served in a timely
manner and allowed for a response before the discovery deadline of
April 28, 2023.
Financial information, in a case such as this, where Counter
Plaintiff as early as July 2019 pled that he would be seeking
“compensatory, special and punitive damages…in excess of ten
million(s) dollars,” clearly provides at least some notice to the
Counter Defendant of same. See Counterclaims (d/e 53). “Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Clearly where punitive damages are sought an individual’s financial
condition is relevant to the pursuit of those damages. See City of
Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 270 (1981)(“evidence of
a tortfeasor’s wealth is traditionally admissible as a measure of the
amount of punitive damages”).
Although Mr. Lozier seemingly implies Mr. Holzgrafe was
uninterested in his finances until after he reached a settlement
agreement between himself and Quincy University for an amount of
money, a somewhat delayed but timely request for information is not
a reason to deny this discovery request. Of note, this settlement
Page 3 of 6

3:18-cv-03077-SEM-KLM # 139

Filed: 10/06/23

Page 4 of 6

resulted in the dismissal of Quincy University as a Defendant. (d/e
94). Mr. Holzgrafe was also dismissed soon thereafter. Further,
whether or not this information is ultimately introduced and
admissible, Counter Plaintiff is entitled to this information to ensure
he is able to support his claim or defense in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Evidence. Mr. Lozier, in asking the Court to deny or
at limit the amount of information compelled asks that only financial
information at the time that the alleged defamatory conduct
occurred.
Financial information from 2017 clearly is not indicative of Mr.
Lozier’s financial condition at present, which is of the most
importance in determining a damages award to dissuade future
conduct. To the extent Mr. Lozier believes that his financial condition
at the time of the conduct should be introduced as a metric by which
to calculate any damages, he may seek to introduce that evidence
before a factfinder at the appropriate time.
Counter Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted to the extent
that Mr. Lozier shall provide the financial information as requested,
including, but not limited to the settlement agreement previously
reached in this matter with a prior party. The parties shall provide a
Page 4 of 6

3:18-cv-03077-SEM-KLM # 139

Filed: 10/06/23

Page 5 of 6

protective order to the Court regarding this settlement agreement
within 14 days, as it is of a personal nature, and before the
documents are disseminated. Counter Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File Reply is DENIED as MOOT.

II.

MOTION IN LIMINE

Counter Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Document Under
Seal (d/e 126) and Counter Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal (d/e 131, 135) are GRANTED. Mr. Lozier’s
Motion in Limine (d/e 127) and Counter Plaintiff’s Response (d/e
130) will be taken under advisement and discussed at the Final
Pretrial Conference.

III.

MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY

Counter Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is GRANTED
to the extent it requests discovery be reopened for the sole purpose
of taking a non-party deposition of Mr. Danil Vayser. Therefore,
discovery will be reopened for that limited purpose alone. As to
Counter Defendant’s request to vacate the current trial schedule, his

Page 5 of 6

3:18-cv-03077-SEM-KLM # 139

Filed: 10/06/23

Page 6 of 6

motion is DENIED. This case remains set for a Final Pretrial
Conference on October 27, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 6, 2023.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Sue E. Myerscough____________
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 6 of 6