Duffy v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital

Filing 312

ORDER granting 284 Relator's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 2/21/2018. (ts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MEGEN DUFFY,
Relator/Plaintiff,
v.
LAWRENCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-2256-SAC-TJJ

ORDER
On November 22, 2017, the Court granted Relator’s Motion to Compel Production of
Responses to Relator’s Fifth Requests for Production to Defendant1 and directed Defendant to
provide supplemental responses to four Requests for Production without objections. The Court
also determined that Defendant should pay Plaintiff’s reasonable expense and attorney’s fees
incurred in making the motion. To assist the Court in determining the proper amount of the
award, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response setting forth the amount she requests, along
with an affidavit itemizing the expenses and attorney’s fees she incurred in bringing the motion.
The Court permitted Defendant to respond.
Plaintiff’s counsel submitted affidavits which state that Plaintiff incurred approximately2
$20,600.00 in fees as a result of Defendant’s objections to and failure to produce documents in
response to certain Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant urges the Court to reject
Plaintiff’s request for fees. Defendant argues the goal of deterrence would be frustrated by
awarding sanctions, because Defendant was represented by different counsel when the Court

1

ECF No. 274. Because the United States declined to intervene in this qui tam action, the
Court refers to Relator as Plaintiff.
2

The amount is approximate because one of the affidavits requests reimbursement for 9 hours,
22 minutes and 41 seconds of time at the rate of $450.00 an hour.

granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel and the need to deter future uncooperative behavior no
longer exists. Defendant does not address the reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees
Plaintiff requests.
The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions.3 Although the Court recognizes that
Defendant has retained new counsel and no additional discovery disputes have arisen since then,
the sanctionable conduct occurred after many rounds of discovery motions and after the Court
had put the parties on notice that sanctions would follow further unreasonable behavior.
Defendant’s response does not address the merits of Plaintiff’s successful motion to compel nor
defend the overruled objections Defendant posed to the Requests for Production at issue in the
motion.
The Court finds a total award in the amount of $10,000.00 is reasonable and appropriate
under the circumstances of this case. Plaintiff submitted the affidavits of four lawyers, all of
whom list time for having drafted, reviewed, and/or edited the motion to compel and/or the reply
brief. While the Court is not criticizing counsel’s division of labor, the Court finds that a
reasonable amount of time to evaluate and draft the motion and reply does not warrant the total
number of hours for which Plaintiff seeks to recover.
The Court is imposing sanctions in the amount of $10,00.00, half to be paid by Lawrence
Memorial Hospital and half to be paid by Lathrop & Gage, LLP, which represented Lawrence
Memorial Hospital through the time of the discovery dispute. The Court is unable to determine
whether client or counsel or some combination of both was responsible for continuing to raise an

3

See ECF No. 284 (Relator’s Motion for Sanctions); ECF No. 290 (Defendant Lawrence
Memorial Hospital’s Response to Relator’s Motion for Sanctions).
2

argument the Court had rejected many times,4 maintaining an objection the Court previously
overruled,5 or making unsupported objections that clearly were not sustainable.6 Accordingly,
the Court holds both Lawrence Memorial Hospital and the firm of Lathrop & Gage, LLP
responsible for the sanctionable conduct.7 The sanctions shall be paid to Plaintiff within twenty
(20) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of February, 2018 at Kansas City, Kansas.

Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge

4

See ECF No. 274 at 4 n.12.

5

See id. at 5-6.

6

See id. at 3-6.

7

To the extent possible, sanctions should be imposed only upon the person or entity responsible
for the sanctionable conduct. Kan. Wastewater, Inc. v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 217 F.R.D.
525, 532 n.28 (D. Kan. 2003). Moreover, sanctions should be imposed against the law firm
rather than the individual attorneys representing the party. See id. (holding law firm rather than
individual attorneys responsible for payment of fees and expenses awarded under Rule 37(a)(4)).
3