v. Hughes

Filing 169

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees 155 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment in this case 160 is GRANTED. I will enter a new judgment in this matter.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 11/20/12. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ST. LOUIS PRODUCE MARKET,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CLARENCE HUGHES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:09CV1912 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 25, 2012, I granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this
matter. Plaintiff St. Louis Produce Market has filed two post judgment motions. The first seeks
sanctions in the form of attorneys fees. The second requests that an amended judgment be
entered which specifically includes an award of sanctions previously entered in this matter.
The Produce Market’s motion for sanctions is directed against Defendant’s counsel,
Christopher Swiecicki. As the basis for its motion, the Produce Market asserts that Swiecicki
acted in concert with his client to induce the Produce Market to enter into an altered severance
agreement with Defendant. The Produce Market asserts that Swiecicki, complacently, if not
intentionally, allowed his client to destroy or fail to disclose evidence in this matter which made
this case more costly in time and expense to litigate.
Swiecicki responds that he was not aware of the “discovery antics of Mr. Hughes” while
this matter was being litigated. Swiecicki states that he informed Hughes of his duty to preserve
evidence and reveal witnesses but it is “now apparent that Mr. Hughes does what he wants; now
he has to pay the price.”
Although I find that Swiecicki’s demeanor and some of his actions in this litigation have

been coarse and contumacious, I find no evidence that Swiecicki engaged in sanctionable
conduct. As a result, I will deny Plaintiff’s motions for attorneys fees.
Plaintiff also requests that I amend the judgment in this matter to reflect the $20,930.55
sanction award I entered against Hughes on May 13, 2011. I will grant that motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees [#155] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment in
this case [#160] is GRANTED. I will enter a new judgment in this matter.

_____________________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of December, 2012.

-2-