Summary
In Diversified Technologies Corp. v. Jerome Technologies, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 445 (N.D.Ill.1988), the court concluded that the expenses which were sought were incurred voluntarily and without relation to the sanctionable pleading, and that Rule 11 did not authorize consequential damages.
Summary of this case from West v. WestOpinion
After Rule 11 sanctions were imposed, party filed motion seeking expedited discovery relating to opposing parties' fee petitions. The District Court, Bua, J., held that discovery was not warranted.
Motion denied.
Mitchell A. Kramer, Mitchell A. Kramer & Associates, Philadelphia, Pa. for plaintiff.
Stanley V. Boychuck, Richard C. Palmer, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, Ill., Donald E. Knebel, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant DePuy, Inc.
Edward C. Fitzpatrick, Susan M. Tennenbaum, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Bales.
ORDER
BUA, District Judge.
Plaintiff's motion for leave of court to seek expedited discovery relating to defendants' fee petitions is denied.
Following the amendment of Rule 11 in 1983, the Advisory Committee declared that courts should allow discovery concerning Rule 11 sanctions " only in extraordinary circumstances." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 advisory committee's note. Plaintiff Chester Borowski has failed to demonstrate such extraordinary circumstances in the instant case. Moreover, discovery would be particularly inappropriate in this instance. In presenting their fee petitions, defendants Depuy, Inc. and Stephen Bales have included sufficient details to render additional discovery unnecessary. Consequently, Borowski's motion seeking discovery related to the fee petitions is denied.