Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Venturedyne, Ltd. v. Carbonyx, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

June 15, 2017

VENTUREDYNE, LTD., d/b/a SCIENTIFIC DUST COLLECTORS, Plaintiff,
v.
CARBONYX, INC., d/b/a CARBONYX CARBON TECHNOLOGIES, and UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Defendants, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Cross Claimant,
v.
CARBONYX, INC., Cross-Claim Defendant, CARBONYX, INC., Counter Claimant,
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Counter Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. MARTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Venturedyne, LTD.'s Notice of Submission of Itemization of Attorney's Fees Incurred in Making Motion to Compel [DE 56], filed by Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Venturedyne, Ltd. on November 21, 2016. Venturedyne requests that the Court order Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant/Counter Claimant Carbonyx, Inc., to pay $7, 600.00 in fees incurred by Venturedyne in making its successful Motion to Compel, plus an additional $990.00 in fees expended on the fee notice and reply - a total of $8, 590.00. On December 7, 2016, Carbonyx filed a response, and on December 12, 2016, Venturedyne filed a reply.

         I. Background

         On June 8, 2015, Venturedyne served a set of requests for production of documents to Carbonyx, which was later revised and resent on January 20, 2016. Shortly after that, the parties began negotiating a list of search terms that Carbonyx could use to search through its electronically-stored information to produce documents responsive to the revised requests for production. While the parties were negotiating what terms would and would not be on the list, Carbonyx's counsel stopped communicating with Venturedyne's counsel about the list, despite five emails from Venturedyne's counsel.

         Venturedyne's counsel filed the Motion to Compel shortly thereafter, and the Court granted it on November 15, 2016. The Court ordered Carbonyx to use 78 search terms to uncover and produce responsive electronic material. These 78 terms came from the list that the parties had been negotiating before Carbonyx's counsel stopped responding to Venturedyne's. The 78 terms were based on sample emails related to the allegations in Venturedyne's Complaint, and appeared reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Because it was successful in its Motion to Compel, Venturedyne now asks the Court to order Carbonyx to pay Venturedyne's fees associated with bringing the Motion to Compel.

         II. Standard

         Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides that, if a motion to compel is granted, the Court “must, after giving the opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees” unless “the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain” the requested discovery, “the opposing party's nondisclosure . . . was substantially justified; or . . . other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). District courts possess wide latitude in evaluating the reasonableness of requested attorney fees and costs. Johnson v. Kakvand, 192 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 1999).

         III. Analysis

         Venturedyne's Motion to Compel was granted, so it is up to Carbonyx to demonstrate that its refusal to respond to the requested discovery by using additional search terms was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of attorneys' fees unjust. Carbonyx raises several arguments against an award of fees, and the Court addresses each in turn.

         A. Partial Award

         Carbonyx argues that the Court's Order was only a partial grant of the Motion to Compel, thereby making an award of fees discretionary and, if necessary, a partial fee award appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C) (“If the motion [to compel] is granted in part and denied in part, the court may . . . apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.”). Carbonyx argues that the Court did not make Carbonyx use several terms to which it had objected, although Venturedyne included those terms in its Motion to Compel. This argument, though, fails to address exactly what precipitated Venturedyne's Motion to Compel. The cause was not that the parties had a good faith disagreement about which terms should and should not be included; rather, it was the decision by Carbonyx's counsel to cut off all communication about the list of search terms.

         Even though the Court did not order Carbonyx to use the full list of terms presented by Venturedyne, Venturedyne's victory on the Motion to Compel was not a partial one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C). Venturedyne moved to compel Carbonyx's responses to their revised discovery requests, and the Court's ordered “Carbonyx to produce the documents requested in Venturedyne's Revised Requests.”

         Because the Court granted Venturedyne's Motion to Compel in its entirety, the Court must award Venturedyne its “reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees, ” absent any other “circumstances [making] an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). To the extent Carbonyx argues that an award of expenses would be unjust simply because the Court did not adopt the full list of search terms proposed by Venturedyne, this argument is not convincing. Carbonyx had the opportunity to negotiate an appropriate list of search terms but declined to, requiring Venturedyne to seek an order compelling responses to the revised requests. Accordingly, an award of fees is expenses is appropriate. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).

         B. Additional ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.