Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Filing 255

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 10/17/2011: For these reasons, the Court orders Joyce to pay Mayer Brown $10,712.34 in attorneys' fees and $1,438.58 in costs connection with the Grochocinski deposition, as well as $24,984.90 in attorneys' fees to brief the motion for sanctions, for a total of $37,135.82. [ For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (hp, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Virginia M. Kendall

CASE NUMBER

06 C 5486

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

10/17/2011

David Grochocinski vs. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For these reasons, the Court orders Joyce to pay Mayer Brown $10,712.34 in attorneys’ fees and $1,438.58 in
costs connection with the Grochocinski deposition, as well as $24,984.90 in attorneys’ fees to brief the
motion for sanctions, for a total of $37,135.82.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
On June 30, 2010, the Court entered an order sanctioning Edward T. Joyce & Associates (“Joyce”),
counsel to David Grochocinski in his capacity as Chapter 7 trustee, bankruptcy estate of CMGT, Inc., for
obstructive and childish tactics during Grochocinski’s deposition. (See Doc. 247.) Specifically, the Court
ordered Joyce to pay one half of the attorneys’ fees and costs defendants Mayer Brown LLP and Ronald
Given (together “Mayer Brown”) paid to have their attorneys prepare for and taking Grochocinski’s
deposition, as well as one half of the fees Mayer Brown incurred to bring the sanctions motion and its
accompanying briefing.
Mayer Brown submitted a fee petition indicating that it spent $21,424.68 in attorneys’ fees to take the
Grochocinski deposition, $2,877.17 in costs related to the deposition, and $49,969.80 in attorneys’ fees in
connection with the briefing on the sanctions motion. Joyce does not dispute that it owes $10,712.34 for the
first category and $1,438.58 for the second category, as directed by the Court’s June 30 order. However,
Joyce asserts that it should not have to pay one half of the briefing costs ($24,984.90) because only a limited
portion of Mayer Browns’ sanctions briefing dealt with Joyce’s conduct at the deposition.
One half of the briefing fees appropriately reflects how Joyce’s tactics multiplied the proceedings by
precipitating Mayer Brown’s sanctions motion holding him to account for those tactics. See 28 U.S.C. §
1927 (authorizing sanctions against an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably
and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’
fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”); Kotsilieris v. Chalmers, 966 F.2d 1181, 1184-85 (7th
Cir. 1992) (finding Section 1927 sanctions are appropriate in situations in which “counsel acted recklessly,
counsel raised baseless claims despite notice of the frivolous nature of these claims, or counsel otherwise
showed indifference to statutes, rules, or court orders.”) As the Court recognized in its June 30 order, Mayer
Brown should not be penalized for bringing a successful sanctions motion, and the Court only required Joyce
06C5486 David Grochocinski vs. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
to pay one half of the briefing fees because Mayer Brown sought, as part of the same motion, sanctions
against Grochocinski as well as Joyce. As for the argument that only one of Mayer Brown’s grounds for
sanctions against Joyce was ultimately successful, Mayer Brown’s motion was not frivolous and Mayer
Brown should also not be penalized for presenting alternative grounds for sanctions.

06C5486 David Grochocinski vs. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Page 2 of 2