North Alabama Fabricating Company, Inc. v. Bedeschi Mid-West Conveyor Company, LLC et al

Filing 105

ORDER CLARIFYING JANUARY 3, 2018 104 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The Court clarifies that "reasonable costs and expenses" in its January 3, 2018 Order shall include the reasonable, actual expenses incurred by Plaintiff's counsel (for one a ttorney) traveling to and from the additional deposition allowed by the Order. It shall also include the attorney's fees incurred for Plaintiff's counsel to attend and take the deposition, but shall not include any time spent preparing for the deposition. Finally, attorney's fees for time Plaintiff's counsel reasonably spends traveling to and from the deposition shall be included, but shall be limited to a maximum of $150 per hour. Signed by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James on 1/8/2018. (byk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS NORTH ALABAMA FABRICATING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. BEDESCHI MID-WEST CONVEYOR COMPANY, LLC; DEARBORN MID-WEST CONVEYOR COMPANY; LARRY HARP; and BRAXTON JONES, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 16-cv-2740-DDC-TJJ ORDER CLARIFYING JANUARY 3, 2018 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On January 3, 2018, the Court entered its Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 104) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (“Order). That Order sanctioned Defendant Bedeschi for its failure to produce properly prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition. Specifically, Defendant Bedeschi was ordered to produce an additional corporate representative, or produce Defendant Jones for a second deposition, within thirty days, with such corporate representative being fully prepared, as required by Rule 30(b)(6), to testify regarding Topics 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 set forth in Plaintiff’s Notice, including the alleged “delays and defects in the products shipped by Plaintiff,” the nonconformance reports, and the Inspection Report subsequently produced on August 23, 2017. The Court also ordered Bedeschi to pay “Plaintiff’s reasonable costs and expenses incurred in conducting this deposition, and the cost of the transcript from the deposition.” The parties have since requested that the Court clarify its Order with respect to whether “costs and expenses” in this context includes Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. The sanctions imposed against Defendant Bedeschi in this case were ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3), wh requires the Court to sanction a p R l 3 hich o party by requ uiring the party failing to ac to pay the “reasonable expenses, i ct e including att torney’s fees caused by the s, failure.” Rule 37(d)(3 leaves it to the Court to determine what const 3) t e titutes “reaso onable expen nses, including attorney’s fees.” In this case, the Court clarifie that “reaso g s C es onable costs and expense in es” its Januar 3, 2018 Order shall in ry O nclude the re easonable, ac ctual expens incurred b Plaintiff’s ses by counsel (for one attor ( rney) traveli to and fro the addit ing om tional deposition allowed by the Ord It der. shall also include the attorney’s fees incurred for Plaintif counsel t attend and take the o e f d ff’s to d depositio but shall not include any time spe preparing for the dep on, ent g position. Fin nally, attorne ey’s fees for time Plaintiff counsel reasonably sp t ff’s r pends travel ling to and fr from the depo osition shall be l included, but shall be limited to a maximum of $150 per hour. , e IT IS THER T REFORE OR RDERED th the partie request fo clarificati of the Co hat es’ or ion ourt’s January 3, 2018 Mem 3 morandum an Order (EC No. 104) is granted. nd CF ) Dated this 8th day of Janu D h uary 2018, at Kansas Cit Kansas. a ty, Teresa J. James U. S. Mag gistrate Judg ge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?