Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

NORINDER v. FUENTES (September 6, 2011)

Magnus Norinder, a Swedish citizen, and Sharon Fuentes, a United States citizen living in Texas, met on the Internet in 2006. Their romance flourished. They were engaged in Sweden in February 2007, they conceived a child in Sweden in April, they were married in Sweden in August. Fuentes returned to Texas to complete a fellowship and Norinder joined her in January of 2008. In July of 2008, the couple and their new child moved to Sweden. Their relationship soured, seemingly as quickly as it had blossomed. There were many fights, some physical. Both experienced professional setbacks. Fuentes accused Norinder of alcohol and drug abuse. Fuentes and their son traveled to the United States in March of 2010, ostensibly for a two-week vacation. Instead, Fuentes informed Norinder that she was remaining in the United States with their son. Within a few months, Norinder found them in southern Illinois. He filed a petition under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. Judge Stiehl (S.D. Ill.) concluded that Sweden was the child's "habitual residence" and ordered him returned. Fuentes appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The Act implements the Hague Convention, to which both Sweden and the United States are parties. It provides for the return of a child to his country of "habitual residence" when a child has been removed in violation of the Convention. Here, the Court first addressed Fuentes' contention that the district court limited her discovery rights improperly. It concluded that the district court acted properly in balancing the need for an expedited schedule in a case like this with Fuentes' need for discovery. The Court noted that Fuentes did not act expeditiously, that the district court accommodated several of her requests, that the district court actually bifurcated the hearing so as to resolve issues that were not related to her discovery request first, and Fuentes did not even object to the court's discovery order. On the merits, Fuentes asserted both that the United States was the child's "habitual residence" and that she carried her burden in proving that a return to Sweden would expose their child to grave harm. With respect to the former, the Court had no difficulty concluding that the district court did not err. Fuentes moved most of her personal belongings to Sweden, received permanent residency status there, took Swedish lessons, was negotiating for a hospital position, and retained no residence in the United States. With respect to the grave risk of harm exception, the Court noted that the district court specifically found Norinder more credible than Fuentes with respect to their testimony about his behavior and his treatment of their child. As a result, Fuentes did not meet the demanding clear and convincing evidence standard imposed by the Act. Finally, Fuentes challenges the district court's fee award. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's treatment of Fuentes' line item challenges and rejected her financial hardship argument because of a lack of support in the record.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DYNEGY MARKETING AND TRADE v. MULTIUT CORP. (August 4, 2011)

For years, Multuit purchased natural gas wholesale from Dynegy Marketing and Trade. Nachshon Draiman personally guaranteed Multuit's obligation. In 1997, Dynegy expressed interest in acquiring Multuit. Under a confidentiality agreement, it conducted its due diligence. Dynegy ultimately chose not to acquire Multuit but instead entered into a joint venture with one of Multuit's competitors. The relationship soured but Multuit continued to purchase from Dynegy. Multuit was unable to pay its current invoices, however and owed Dynegy in excess of $1.5 million by the end of 2000. On several occasions, Multuit attempted to reach agreement on a long-term price guarantee with Dynegy unsuccessfully. Dynegy ultimately stopped providing gas to Multuit in December 2002 and filed suit. Multuit responded with a host of counterclaims. Shortly after the complaint was filed, the FERC issued a report in which it identified efforts to manipulate price indices in the Western United States energy markets. Dynegy was implicated but the report was limited to the Western United States. In discovery, Multuit attempted to obtain information from Dynegy regarding its price index reporting and calculation. The magistrate judge did not allow it. Dynegy moved for summary judgment on some of its claims and all of Multuit's counterclaims. In response, Multuit submitted an excerpt from the FERC report and a lengthy declaration containing, for the first time, its damage estimates. Judge Nordberg (N.D. Ill.) excluded the declaration and granted Dynegy's motion. After denying Multuit's motion for reconsideration, the court entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). The Seventh Circuit remanded for a prejudgment interest calculation. On remand, Multuit again moved for reconsideration and supplemented the record with additional affidavits. The court denied the motion and entered judgment for Dynegy. Multuit appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne and Tinder and District Judge Herndon affirmed. Multuit was chastised by the panel for its "kitchen sink" approach (it presented nine issues) on appeal. The Court considered and rejected each: a) the district court did not err in excluding the declaration when it was the first time Multuit disclosed its damages theory, b) Dynegy's vague statements about "best price" did not amount to an enforceable oral contract, c) there can be no enforceable long-term price agreement when the record presents no evidence of either the price term or duration, d) Dynegy's mistake in failing to invoice Multuit for interest for a period of time did not amount to an implied agreement to forego interest, e) Dynegy offered sufficient proof of its own damages by presenting an expert who testified regarding the invoices and interest calculations, f) the record does not support a conclusion that any alleged price manipulation in the Western United States affected Dynegy's price and therefore its damages, g) Multuit cannot recover on its breach of contract counterclaim when it presented no evidence of damages, h) Multuit cannot recover on its Robinson-Patman Act counterclaim when it presented no evidence of damages, and i) Multuit waived its challenge to the denial of the motion for reconsideration by not addressing the grounds upon which the district court denied it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

RUBIN v. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN (March 29, 2011)

A number of American citizens suffered physical and emotional injuries in a September 4, 1997 suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Several of them brought suit and obtained a $71.5 million default judgment against Iran, based on the country's training and support of Hamas. In an effort to collect on its judgment, the plaintiffs registered the judgment in Illinois and served Citations to Discover Assets on the Oriental Institute and the Field Museum. The Oriental Institute holds two collections of Persian antiquities on loan from Iran for academic study. The Field Museum holds a collection of Persian pottery and metalworks although the Field Museum claims ownership of these works and Iran does not dispute the claim, the plaintiffs assert that Iran does own the collection because they were stolen and smuggled out of the country decades ago. The museums asserted that the collections were immune from attachment under § 1609 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Judge Manning (N.D. Ill.) ruled that only a foreign state can raise § 1609 immunity. Soon thereafter, Iran appeared and asserted its immunity. But Iran's appearance changed the litigation’s direction. The plaintiffs served Iran with discovery requests and deposition notices that sought information not only regarding the Chicago collections but also with respect to Iran's assets in the United States generally. Iran sought a protective order and moved for summary judgment on the immunity issue. The court granted the plaintiffs additional discovery before having to respond to the motion and ordered Iran to respond to general asset discovery. Iran appeals the general asset discovery order as well as the earlier order requiring it to appear and assert its immunity.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Sykes and District Judge Simon reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed its appellate jurisdiction, given the general rule that a order authorizing discovery is not immediately appealable. Orders denying immunity are appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and the district courts decision ordering discovery, in effect, did just that. The earlier order appealed presented a slightly different question. That order denying immunity was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. But the museums did not appeal and that time has run. The effect of the museums' failure to immediately appeal is that the order is appealable the next time an appealable order is entered. Although the Court noted that, in most cases, the next appealable order is the final judgment, it is not necessarily so. Here, there is a second appealable order so the first order is properly under review. The Court turned to the merits and the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. The Act generally codified the common law of sovereign immunity. It contains two principal sections: § 1604 makes a foreign state immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts and § 1609 makes a foreign state's property in the country immune from attachment. Each section has exceptions. For example, jurisdiction in this case was premised on a § 1605 exception for cases involving money damage claims resulting from torture or killing. Similarly, the plaintiffs rely on a § 1610 exception to attachment immunity when the foreign state's property in the country is used for commercial activity. But the district court never ruled on the exception’s merits. Instead, it ruled that Iran had to appear and affirmatively plead the exception and then, once it did appear, the court focused on discovery issues rather than the merits. The Court concluded that the district court failed to appreciate the tension between ordering discovery and the sovereign’s right to immunity. Immunity generally protects its beneficiary not only from liability but also from the burdens of litigation, like discovery. Iran is presumed immune from attachment – the plaintiffs must identify particular property and demonstrate that it fits one of the exceptions. The Court noted that the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits agree that discovery should be allowed to proceed narrowly in these circumstances. Therefore, a plaintiff must identify specific property and set forth a plausible argument for an exception to immunity before a court orders discovery. With respect to the district court’s order that Iran had to appear, the Court also reversed. The Act provides that a sovereign’s assets in the country “shall be” immune from execution. Relying on that statutory language, the rest of the Act, the common law immunity history, and decisions from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits , the Court held that a foreign state need not appear to assert that its property is immune from attachment. The argument can be raised by the holders of the property or by the court itself.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

APPLICATIONS OF HERAEUS KULZER, GMBH, FOR ORDERS COMPELLING DISCOVERY FOR USE IN A FOREIGN PROCEEDING v. BIOMET (January 24, 2011)

Heraeus Kulzer, a German company and a leading producer of bone cement, sued Biomet, an American company, in a German court. Heraeus Kulzer alleges that Biomet obtained confidential information from a former Heraeus Kulzer distributor and used it in a competing product. As part of its case preparation, Heraeus Kulzer sought discovery in Indiana federal court. Judge Miller (N.D. Ind.) denied the application, concluding that Heraeus Kulzer was attempting to circumvent German law and that Heraeus Kulzer's requests were overly broad.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Posner and District Judge Pallmeyer reversed and remanded. The Court stated that § 1782 allows a district court to order the production of documents for use in a foreign tribunal. In the sound discretion of a district court, an applicant can obtain as much discovery as if the case had been brought in that court. The Court noted however, the potential for abuse in different ways: seeking discovery that is already available in the foreign court for harassment purposes only, seeking discovery that would be inadmissible in a foreign court again for harassment purposes, inundating a foreign court with evidence that would be inadmissible in an American court, seeking discovery that the foreign court would disapprove of because of the cost of compliance, and obtaining a discovery advantage by using American discovery rules while limiting one's adversary to foreign discovery rules. The Court saw no abuse, however, in Heraeus Kulzer's application. It appeared that the requested discovery was not available under the German procedures and there was no indication that the requested evidence would be inadmissible. Biomet neither sought any relief from the German court nor sought any conditions on Heraeus Kulzer's application from the American court. Because Heraeus Kulzer had demonstrated a need for the discovery, it is Biomet’s burden to establish that the discovery would be inappropriate under the statute. Since Biomet did not do that, the Court held that the § 1782 requirements were met. The Court also stated that the district court committed error by turning down the request without requiring some negotiation as to its scope. Biomet had refused to meet with Heraeus Kulzer to negotiate restrictions on the discovery and the district court never demanded evidence from Biomet as to its alleged burden. Once a party establishes entitlement to § 1782 discovery, the matter is governed by the federal discovery rules. They Court remanded for further consideration of the request under those rules. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

AMERICAN BANK v. CITY OF MENASHA (November 29, 2010)

The City of Menasha, Wisconsin financed a power plant conversion by issuing bonds. Unfortunately, the project ended up over-budget and the city defaulted on the bonds. Several bondholders, including American Bank, filed a class action against the City. The suit alleged violations of federal securities law. A few weeks after filing suit, the Bank submitted a public records request to the City pursuant to state law. When Menasha refused to produce the requested records, the Bank obtained an order from a state court ordering compliance. Instead of complying, Menasha sought a stay from the district court in which the class action was pending. Judge Springmann (N.D. Ind.) granted the motion and issued a stay under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, as amended by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. The Act requires that discovery be stayed while a motion to dismiss is pending and authorizes a district court to stay state court discovery proceedings when necessary. The Bank appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes reversed. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction. Although discovery orders are usually not appealable, there are exceptions – plus, this may not be a discovery order. The Court concluded that jurisdiction was inseparable from the merits. If the Bank is right on the merits, it is not a discovery order but an appealable injunction. If the City is right on the merits, it is a discovery order and unappealable unless it fits within an exception. The Court sided with the Bank. First of all, discovery is a well defined word in federal civil procedure and does not generally include the entirety of a party's investigation. Second, if the Act meant to use it in a different way, there must be a reason based on statute or policy. The policy behind the discovery stay is to prevent one party from using discovery to impose exorbitant costs on the other for the purpose of inducing a settlement. That concern does not exist here, since the cost of complying with the public records request can be charged to the Bank. Menasha concedes that it couldn't refuse a newspaper's request for the same records, nor could it have refused the Bank's request if it made the request a few weeks before filing the complaint rather than a few weeks after. The City not only does not convince the Court to adopt a broad definition of "discovery" in the Act -- it convinces the Court that their interpretation is futile, would create a “precedent of unmanageable scope,” and would hold the law “out to ridicule.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MEYERS v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP. (AMTRAK)(August 30, 2010)

Greg Meyers was an Amtrak pipe fitter for years. It was a difficult job -- requiring lifting, twisting, reaching, etc., frequently in confined spaces. Meyers' size (approximately 350 pounds) made the job even more difficult. He started experiencing problems in 2004. He was referred to Dr. Rosseau, a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed him with cervical spondylosis and carpal tunnel syndrome. Rosseau performed carpal tunnel surgery in 2004 and back surgery in 2008. Dr. Tonino, an orthopedic surgeon, operated on his right shoulder in 2007. Meyers brought suit against Amtrak under the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). He alleged that his injuries were caused by Amtrak's failure to use ordinary care. He relied on the Rosseau and Tonino expert reports and a report by his expert ergonomist. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) granted partial summary judgment to Amtrak on statute of limitations grounds but then struck the reports of both doctors and the ergonomist. Without those reports and testimony, Meyers was unable to establish the elements of the offense. The court granted full summary judgment. Meyers appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Williams, Hamilton affirmed. The Court addressed only the doctor expert issue. It stated that a party offering an expert witness who was retained to provide expert testimony in a case must comply with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2). Those requirements include disclosing the bases of the expert's opinions and the reasons for them, which Meyers did not. The Court noted that it had never ruled on whether a treating physician is required to comply with those disclosure requirements if the subject of the opinion was not determined at the time of treatment. It concluded that a treating physician should be held to the same disclosure requirement if the physician is offered for testimony regarding the cause of injury and that testimony is based on a conclusion that was not made at the time of treatment. The testimony of Meyers' two doctors fits that definition and was properly excluded. Without those reports, there is no evidence of causation and summary judgment was appropriate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HAPPEL v. WALMART STORES (April 19, 2010)

Heidi Happel was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the early 1990s. In 1993, her primary care physician prescribed a pain reliever for an unrelated condition. In fact, she was allergic to the medication. Her physician phoned the prescription to a Walmart pharmacy were Happel typically filled her prescriptions. Despite the fact that Walmart's computer system and Happel's husband both alerted the pharmacist to her allergy, he filled the prescription anyway. Happel immediately went into anaphylactic shock. Her general health quickly deteriorated. She and her husband sued Walmart -- Happel brought a negligence claim and her husband brought a loss of society claim. The Happels listed the original diagnosing physician as a witness but did not disclose him as an expert or tender an expert report. They did list a neurologist as their expert. Just before trial, the Happels attempted to add the diagnosing physician as an expert. The district court denied their request. The court also excluded much of the neurologist’s testimony. In its instructions, the court included the loss of society claim within the negligence claim. It then submitted to the jury a verdict form that contained only a single line for an award of damages. The jury awarded $465,400. The court reduced the award by $150,000 because of a settlement before trial with the primary care physician. The Happels appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams, and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed the expert issues. With respect to the diagnosing physician, the Court noted that the Happels only addressed his qualifications – but that was not the basis for the lower court's exclusion. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's excluding the diagnosing physician as an expert when plaintiffs failed to disclose him as such during discovery. With respect to the neurologist, the district court excluded his testimony regarding Happel's multiple sclerosis because he had very little experience with multiple sclerosis. The Court found no abuse of discretion. With respect to the damages verdict, the Court noted that the lower court treated the loss of society claim as simply one aspect of the overarching negligence claim. Although the court instructed the jury to return separate verdicts for each of the plaintiffs, the verdict form it provided had only a single line for a damages award. The Court concluded that the jury instructions and the form of verdict were ambiguous. As a result, it is impossible to determine Although it was error to give the instruction and use the form, the Court noted that it still had to find prejudice before granting a new trial. It found prejudice in reference to the set-off amounts. Each individual plaintiff had settled with the primary care physician for $75,000 each. If the jury intended to award each of the plaintiffs more than $75,000, the $150,000 ($75,000 from each) set off is correct. However, if the jury's intent was to award either plaintiff less than $75,000, that plaintiff's set-off would be capped at the amount of the award and the total set-off would then be less than $150,000. Having found prejudice, the court reversed for new trial on damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SANDRA T.E. v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL DISTRICT 100 (March 30, 2010)

In early 2005, local police arrested an elementary school band teacher and charged him with numerous counts of sexual abuse. Within days of his arrest, some of the victims and the victims’ families sued the school district and the principal. In response to the arrest and its attendant publicity, as well as the lawsuit, School District 100’s School Board retained the law firm of Sidley Austin. According to the engagement letter, Sidley Austin was to investigate the administration's response to the allegations of sexual abuse and provide legal services in connection with the investigation. The attorneys interviewed many employees and former employees. They took notes and prepared interview memoranda. The law firm delivered an oral report to the School Board in closed session and submitted a written summary of their investigation, which they marked confidential. After the preparation of the report, Sidley Austin did not participate directly in the litigation. The plaintiffs sought discovery from them, however. The firm turned over a number of documents, but withheld the notes and memoranda on the grounds of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. The district court ordered the firm to turn over the documents, ruling that the law firm acted as "investigators" -- not as "attorneys." Sidley Austin appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood, and Sykes reversed. The Court first defined its terms: a) the attorney-client privilege protects communications between a client and its attorney, made in confidence, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, and b) the work-product doctrine protects documents that are prepared by attorneys in anticipation of litigation. In this case, the district court's views were developed in a series of hearings relating to discovery requests against the School District. Sidley Austin was not provided notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Court concluded that the district court erred by focusing on letters from the School District to parents emphasizing the district’s desire to investigate and discover the truth. The district court did not, on the other hand, focus on what the Court considered the "most important" evidence, the engagement letter. The engagement letter specifically indicated that the investigation was a necessary prerequisite to the delivery of legal advice to the School Board. The engagement letter itself, as well as the conduct of the attorneys, brought this investigation within the attorney-client privilege under the Supreme Court's decision in Upjohn. The Court also concluded that the materials at issue were protected by the work-product doctrine. The district court's contrary conclusion was based upon its treatment of the law firm as investigators. The law firm was hired, at least in part, in response to the filing of the lawsuit. The Court emphasized that the work-product protection may actually be more than just an alternative ground for confidentiality. The attorney-client privilege may not cover all of the witness interviews, since some of the witnesses were not district employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WALSH v. CHEZ (October 21, 2009)

Jason Walsh was diagnosed with autism early in his life. His parents took him to Dr. Michael Chez for treatment. Chez prescribed a daily dosage of 50 mg of prednisone. One side-effect of prednisone is its negative impact on the body's ability to fight infection. A short time after the beginning of his prednisone treatment, Jason developed pneumonia. Dr. Chez reduced the prednisone treatment from 50 mg per day to 50 mg twice a week. A few months later, Jason died. Jason's parents brought a medical malpractice case against Dr. Chez. The Walshes submitted expert reports supporting their theory that the abrupt dosage reduction was the cause of their son's death. The district court excluded the reports on the ground that they failed to articulate a standard of care. The court dismissed the case. The Walshes appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court focused on the Rule 26 duty to disclose information regarding an expert's testimony. The purpose of the rule is to allow an opposing party a reasonable opportunity to address the expert's opinion. Examining the reports of the two experts, the Court concluded that each expressed an opinion that the conduct of Dr. Chez was not consistent with the standard of care. Dr. Chez was on notice of the Walshes' theory of malpractice. The fact that there may have been numerous ways of properly weaning Jason from the prednisone does not affect the experts' opinions that Dr. Chez' approach fell below the standard of care.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

GOTHAM HOLDINGS v. HEALTH GRADES (September 3, 2009)

Gotham Holdings and Health Grades are parties to litigation pending in New York. In that proceeding, Health Grades maintained that an award in its earlier arbitration with Hewitt Associates supported its litigation position. Although it tendered the award and related documents in the litigation, Gotham asked for more. Health Grades refused. Gotham subpoenaed the documents directly from Hewitt in Illinois. The court ordered Hewitt to turn over the documents, which it is willing to do. Health Grades appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that Health Grade's refusal was based on a confidentiality provision in the arbitration. The first ground on which it affirmed was a specific section of the confidentiality agreement that allowed documents to be produced in response to a subpoena. Additionally, even if the agreement did not so provide, the Court held that the parties to the arbitration could only bind themselves. They cannot, by agreement, limit a third party's access to the documents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

GABBANELLI ACCORDIONS & IMPORTS, L. L. C. v. DITTA GABBANELLI UBALDO DI ELIO GABBANELLI (July 30, 2009)

Gabbenelli Accordions & Imports ("American Gabbenelli") used to be the American distributor for a predecessor of defendant Ditta Gabbenelli Ubaldo Di Elio Gabbenelli ("Italian Gabbenelli"). Disputes arose between the two companies in the 1990s. In 1999, the two companies entered into an agreement under which American Gabbenelli retained the exclusive right to use the Gabbenelli mark in North America and Italian Gabbenelli retained the exclusive right to use it in Italy. The parties further agreed that future disputes would be resolved by arbitration. Notwithstanding the arbitration agreement, Italian Gabbenelli sued American Gabbenelli in an Italian court and American Gabbenelli filed this suit in the United States. American Gabbenelli charged Italian Gabbenelli with trademark infringement. The district court first rejected Italian Gabbenelli's contention that the arbitration agreement deprived the court of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of the Italian litigation. When no decision was rendered within a few years, the court lifted the stay. American Gabbenelli served Italian Gabbenelli with requests for admissions in May of 2005. Italian Gabbenelli finally appeared through counsel in October of 2005 but did not respond to the requests for admissions. Italian Gabbenelli filed an opposition to American Gabbenelli's motion for summary judgment in June of 2007, and also asked for leave to deny the requests for admissions, which had since been deemed admitted. The court denied that request and granted American Gabbenelli's motion for summary judgment. Italian Gabbenelli appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum and Wood affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court rejected Italian Gabbenelli's appeal on liability. First, it agreed with the district court that the arbitration agreement did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. Second, it concluded that the Italian judgment (since rendered) was irrelevant because it was rendered after the district court judgment. Third, the Court concluded that the district court was within its rights in not allowing Italian Gabbenelli to reopen the requests for admissions after ignoring them for several years. The Court did reverse, however, with respect to damages. The district court awarded damages for lost profits plus statutory damages of $500 for each infringing accordion. The Lanham Act allows statutory damages only for violations on which compensatory damages are not awarded. The district court's award of lost profits and statutory damages with respect to the same accordions was improper. The Court also criticized the district court for awarding statutory damages on each individual item sold. The Act allows statutory damages on each "type of goods," not on individual goods. The Court remanded for a redetermination of damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM. v. KOENIG (February 26, 2009)

James Koenig was the Chief Financial Officer of Waste Management, Inc. In the early 1990s, after years of acceptable growth, the company’s financial performance began to suffer. Koenig devised several accounting strategies that made the company appear more profitable than it was. Koenig resigned in January of 1997. In October of 1997, the company disclosed in a press release that its financial statements were inaccurate and unreliable. The SEC filed a complaint against Koenig in March of 2002. At trial, the jury found that his accounting strategies were fraudulent. The court imposed a $2.1 million civil penalty, ordered the disgorgement of almost $1 million in bonuses, imposed $1.2 million in pretax interest, and enjoined Koenig from serving as a director of a public company. Koenig appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Wood affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first addressed Koenig's statute of limitations argument. Although recognizing that the statute is five years and that more than five years passed between Koenig's resignation and the filing of the complaint, the Court rejected Koenig's argument. Instead, the Court noted that there has long been a special rule for statutes of limitations in fraud cases. A victim of fraud has the full statutory time to file, beginning from the date the wrong came to light or would have with due diligence. Since Koenig's accounting misdeeds were not public until the company issued its press release and Koenig never claimed that the SEC could have known earlier, the complaint was timely. The Court then addressed several trial management objections. It concluded that the lower court did not err in allowing the SEC to put on evidence of the motives of the company's new management. Although originally denying the SEC's motion in limine, the lower court admitted motive evidence after Koenig "opened the door." The court had warned Koenig that it would allow the evidence if Koenig made motive at issue. Second, the Court approved of the trial court’s practice of allowing the jurors to submit questions for witnesses and found no abuse of discretion. Third, the Court found no violation of the discovery or notice rules in the SEC's calling as its witness Koenig’s own expert, whom he did not call. Koenig also complains that the $2.1 million penalty was greater than allowed by the statute. The statute limits a penalty to no greater than the greater of $100,000 or the defendant’s pecuniary gain. The court included pre-judgment interest in its calculation of pecuniary gain. The Court approved of this formula. It held that pecuniary gain is the amount the defendant obtained as a result of his fraudulent accounting practices plus any return he could have made by investing that sum, until its disgorgement. The Court did disagree with the district court's computation of Koenig's bonuses. The company awards bonuses based on increases in the company's earnings over the prior year. Based upon the testimony of the SEC's expert, the Court concluded that the company’s corrected earnings increased from 1991 - 1992. The Court remanded for a recalculation of Koenig’s bonuses and, if necessary, a recalculation of the penalties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

COLLINS v. ILLINOIS (February 2, 2009)

Margaret Collins has had a long-running dispute with the State of Illinois over her employment with the Illinois State Library. This is her third lawsuit, which the Seventh Circuit remanded to the district court for consideration of some of her claims. The road got a little bumpy after remand. The court ordered her to amend her complaint on four different occasions and forced her to respond to discovery. The parties finally arrived at an agreeable date for her deposition. Although she did appear, she refused to submit to interrogation with parties present. She was told they had a right to be there. One of the lawyers offered to call the magistrate to resolve the issue. Collins left. The defendants moved for dismissal of her complaint for discovery abuse and for their fees for preparing for the deposition. The court dismissed the complaint, stating that her refusal was “willful and egregious.” He also concluded that complaints she had about the court reporter and police officers in the vicinity were baseless. He also ordered Collins to pay the defendants’ fees and costs. Collins appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court appreciated the severity of dismissal as a discovery abuse sanction. The sanction is appropriate, however, when there is willfulness or bad faith and the sanction is proportionate to the conduct. The Court found the district court’s decision reasonable. It made a finding of willfulness. And the record established a pattern of Collins’ efforts to hinder the progress of the case. The Court also rejected, in short shrift, Collins’ complaints about the award of fees and the bias of the district court judge.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NEGRETE v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP. (AMTRAK) (October 27, 2008)

Jorge Negrete was a track repair worker for Amtrak.  He injured his back on the job. He sued Amtrak, alleging a permanent disability. During discovery, Negrete: a) withheld the names of doctors who did not support his claim, b) provided false information during his deposition regarding his income, c) was “less than forthcoming” at his deposition regarding who performed maintenance at his apartments, and d) missed twenty-one discovery deadlines (in one case by over a year). The district court dismissed the case for these abuses. Negrete appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Sykes affirmed. The Court observed that dismissal is a drastic penalty for discovery abuses. In the case, however, the “appalling” conduct of Negrete supported the dismissal. He lied about the principal issues in the case – how severe were his injuries and whether he could work. The Court not only affirmed the dismissal, it referred its opinion to the United States Attorney’s Office.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link