Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This is a motion for sanctions filed against Sandra Giuffre and Konicek & Dillon, her lawyers in a legal malpractice case.
Citation preview
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SANDRA GIUFFRE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 13-CV-04005 ) GERALD JENKINS, an individual, and ) GOLDBERG KOHN Ltd., a corporation ) )
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT’S ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Defendants Gerald Jenkins and Goldberg Kohn Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”), by their
undersigned counsel, respectfully move this Court for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v), specifically dismissal of this action, due to Plaintiff Sandra Giuffre’s
(“Plaintiff’s) failure to comply with this Court’s November 26, 2013 Order. Despite this Court’s
Order requiring Plaintiff to answer Defendants’ long-overdue written discovery by December 30,
2013, Plaintiff has not fulfilled any of her obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. In support of this motion, Defendants submit the Declaration of Barry S. Alberts,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and state as follows:
1. On August 5, 2013, Defendants served Plaintiff with interrogatories pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33, and document requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 34, in order to begin
discovering the bases for Plaintiff’s allegations and claims in this legal malpractice action against
Plaintiff’s former attorneys.
2. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff served her Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures,
disclosing that Plaintiff seeks to recover over $23 million in damages. Other than the Complaint,
which consist of no less than 108 paragraphs of prolix allegations, and Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(1)
Case: 1:13-cv-04005 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/31/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:164
2
disclosure of a $23 million damages claim, the Defendants know nothing about the Plaintiff’s
case. Plaintiff has failed or refused to disclose a single fact relating to her allegations and claims.
Indeed, despite Defendants’ numerous importunings and demands, the Plaintiff has not answered
even one of the 25 interrogatories that Defendants propounded to her on August 5, 2013. Nor
has the Plaintiff produced a single document in response to the Rule 34 requests that the
Defendants served on her on August 5, 2013.
3. Due to Plaintiff’s utter failure to meet her discovery obligations, Defendants filed
a Motion to Compel on October 10, 2013. (Copies of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s
Discovery Responses and Exhibits are attached hereto as Exhibit 2).
4. This Court granted that Motion on November 26, 2013, ordering Plaintiff’s
compliance with her discovery obligations by December 30, 2013. (Order, attached hereto as
Exhibit 3).
5. Despite two court appearances and multiple conferences, emails, and telephone
calls, as of December 31, 2013, Plaintiff has still not served even one interrogatory answer or
produced a single document in response to Defendants’ discovery requests served over four
months ago. (See Defendants’ Motion to Compel, Exh. 2; Alberts Decl., Exh. 1).
6. Plaintiff is in direct violation of this Court’s November 26, 2013 Order requiring
compliance with Defendants’ discovery responses by December 30, 2013. (See Order, Exh. 3).
7. This Court may dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
November 26, 2013 Order. See Banco Del Atlantico, S.A. & HSBC Mexico, S.A. v. Woods
Industs. Inc., 519 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding dismissal of case for plaintiff’s
discovery abuses).
Case: 1:13-cv-04005 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/31/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:165
3
8. Defendants respectfully ask the Court to enter an order: (i) dismissing Plaintiff’s
case for failure to comply with this Court’s November 26, 2013 Order; and (ii) requiring Plaintiff
to reimburse Defendants for Defendants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Rule
37(b)(2)(C), for this motion and the Defendants’ prior motion to compel, both of which were
made necessary only because of the Plaintiff's recidivious, continuing and completely unjustified
disregard of her discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated: December 31, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Willoughby Anderson Barry S. Alberts Willoughby Anderson SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 258-5500 (p) (312) 258-5600 (f) [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants, Gerald Jenkins and Goldberg Kohn Ltd.
Case: 1:13-cv-04005 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/31/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:166
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on December 31, 2013, she caused the
foregoing document to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which
shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Willoughby Anderson One of the Attorneys for Defendants, Gerald Jenkins and Goldberg Kohn Ltd
Case: 1:13-cv-04005 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/31/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:167
