Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Filing 250

RESPONSE by Plaintiff David Grochocinski Joyce's Response to Defendants' Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 249 (Joyce, Edward)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DISTRICT
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI, not individually,
but solely in his capacity as the Chapter 7
Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of
CMGT, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW LLP,
RONALD B. GIVEN, and CHARLES W.
TRAUTNER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 06 C 5486
Judge Virginia M. Kendall

JOYCE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

On June 30, 2010, this Court ordered Joyce to pay (a) one-half of the attorneys’ fees
incurred by Defendants in preparing for and taking Plaintiff’s deposition; (b) one-half of the
costs incurred by Defendants in connection with Plaintiff’s deposition; and (c) one-half of the
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Defendants in bringing their motion for sanctions. The
purpose of that order was to sanction Joyce for conduct that occurred during Plaintiff’s
deposition.
Accordingly, Joyce does not contest the amount of fees and costs that Defendants seek
under (a) and (b) above. However, Joyce respectfully calls the Court’s attention to the following
facts that should bear upon the amount of fees that Defendants seek under (c) above (“briefing
fees”). In that regard, Defendants filed:
(1)

A 14 page Memorandum In Support Of Their Motion For
Sanctions against Joyce and Plaintiff, of which only two

paragraphs

concerned

Joyce’s

conduct

during

Plaintiff’s

deposition;
(2)

An 18 page Reply Memorandum In Support Of Their Motion For
Sanctions against Joyce, of which only one paragraph concerned
Joyce’s conduct during Plaintiff’s deposition; and

(3)

A 20 page Reply Memorandum In Support Of Their Motion For
Sanctions against Plaintiff, none of which concerned Joyce’s
conduct during Plaintiff’s deposition.

Defendants paid $49,969.80 of fees for those briefs, and now seek one-half of that
amount--$24,984.90. But given that this Court has already sanctioned Joyce for one-half of
Defendants’ fees and costs from Plaintiff’s deposition, Joyce respectfully submits that it would
be unfair to further sanction him for one-half of the briefing fees because, as shown above, those
briefing fees had almost nothing to do with Joyce’s deposition conduct. Accordingly, Joyce
requests that this Court substantially reduce the briefing fees portion of Defendants’ petition.
Respectfully submitted,
EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: ____/s/ Edward T. Joyce___________
Edward T. Joyce
Arthur W. Aufmann
Robert D. Carroll
The Law Offices of Edward T. Joyce & Associates, P.C.
135 South LaSalle Street, Ste., 2200
Chicago, Illinois 60603

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Arthur W. Aufmann, an attorney, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of
the foregoing JOYCE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS to be served upon the counsel of record via email through the United States
District Court Electronic Filing System this 22nd day of July, 2011.

/s/ Arthur W. Aufmann

_______