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)

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