IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., 

an Ohio corporation, individually and as 

the representative of a class of similarlysituated persons, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE 

SOLUTIONS, INC. and ALLSCRIPTS 

HEALTHCARE, LLC 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 12-cv-03233 

Magistrate Judge Cole 

DECLARATION OF LIVIA M. KISER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL CERTAIN DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR 

SANCTIONS AND SUPPLEMENT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT THERETO

I, Livia M. Kiser, declare as follows: 

1. I am a partner at the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP (“Sidley”), counsel for 

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and Allscripts Healthcare, LLC (collectively, “Allscripts”). 

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration, and, if called as a witness, 

could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 

2. I submit this Declaration in Support of Allscripts’ Motion to Compel Certain 

Discovery Responses and Request for Sanctions. 

3. As part of my duties, I review, edit, and approve all of the invoices issued to 

Allscripts for legal work performed by Sidley attorneys and paralegals in this matter, typically 

reviewing each invoice within a few weeks after such work was performed. 

4. Invoices are typically prepared and submitted on a monthly basis. 
 

2 

5. There are three attorneys working on this matter: myself, Larry Fogel, and 

Andrew Chinsky. The paralegals working on the matter (as they are available to assist) are Mr. 

Platt, Ms. Ochwat, and Mr. Keker. All of these individuals bill their time for work performed. 

We strive to have the least expensive timekeeper perform any given task in order to keep the 

bills as low as possible. 

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an itemized chart prepared by me and individuals 

working under my direction that summarizes and describes the work performed and hours 

chargeable to Allscripts as a result of Sidley’s examination and analysis of: (1) Plaintiff’s 

written discovery responses with regard to fax logs; (2) Plaintiff’s document productions 

submitted and court papers filed in other matters (including the Alma Lasers case) and 

comparing them to certain of Plaintiff’s written discovery responses in this case, including with 

respect to Plaintiff’s lack of production of fax logs; (3) Allscripts’ additional, independent 

research to attempt to verify the truth or falsity of additional Plaintiff’s written discovery 

responses, and analysis in connection therewith; (4) multiple discovery conferences with Plaintiff 

to discuss these matters and, where possible, attempt to informally resolve disputes; (5) analysis 

of Plaintiff’s production of fax logs in May and then again in June, which Plaintiff expressly 

represented to be all of the fax logs in its possession; (6) preparation of the Motion to Compel 

Certain Discovery Responses and Request for Sanctions, Supplement thereto, Reply in Support 

thereof, and all necessary additional court papers (e.g., declarations, notices, etc.); (7) review and 

analysis of Plaintiff’s opposition and the allegedly new fax logs that Plaintiff produced in 

connection therewith on August 28, 2015 (collectively, the “Rule 37 Work”). 

7. The foregoing represents a great deal of work performed by the timekeepers 

working on this matter. The analysis and review was of necessity complicated and time 
 

3 

consuming because (among other reasons) accuracy and correctness was of paramount 

importance. 

8. I prepared Exhibit A by reviewing the daily time recorded in the ordinary course 

of business by the person performing the task. I excluded from Exhibit A any legal work 

unrelated to the Rule 37 Work. In some instances, the time spent was billed as part of several 

tasks performed on the same day, so that it was necessary for me to confer with timekeepers in 

order to obtain good faith estimates, based on their knowledge of the nature of the tasks billed 

that day, how much of that day’s work was devoted to the Rule 37 Work. In other instances, 

tasks relevant to the instant matter were the only tasks billed on that day. 

9. I have redacted portions of Exhibit A from the publicly filed version to preserve 

Allscripts’ attorney-client privilege and work product immunity over the time entries contained 

therein, but I contemporaneously submit an unredacted version of Exhibit A to the Court in 

camera to assist the Court in determining in its discretion the proper sanctions to issue as a result 

of Plaintiff’s discovery abuses, as detailed in Allscripts’ moving papers. By submitting an 

unredacted version of Exhibit A in camera, Allscripts does not intend to waive, does not waive, 

and expressly reserves the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity over the time 

entries contained therein. 

10. The hourly rates for the timekeepers are reflected in Exhibit A. The rates and 

amounts in Exhibit A set forth amounts actually billed to Allscripts by Sidley. Based upon my 

experience, which includes nearly 15 years of practice before state and federal courts across the 

United States, the legal fees and costs incurred herein are reasonable and necessary for the 

completion of the Rule 37 Work in the Chicago-land area. 
 

4 

11. The total amount billed to Allscripts for the Rule 37 Work is $124,891.00. A 

breakdown of Exhibit A by category is as follows: 

Task(s) Relate To: Total Hours Total Fees: 

Review and analysis of 

documents produced and court 

papers filed in other cases 

evidencing the existence of fax 

logs that Plaintiff in this case 

denied having; fact investigation 

in connection with Plaintiff’s 

written discovery responses that 

were incomplete/inaccurate 

15.5 $9,687.50 

Preparation for and attendance 

at meet-and-confers regarding 

fax logs and other discovery 

requests, including preparation 

of written correspondence 

15.9 $9,266 

Review and analysis of 

thousands of pages of fax logs 

produced by Plaintiff in May, 

June, and August (produced 

both pre- and post- motion to 

compel) 

19.3 $12,062.50 

Drafting of Motion to Compel 

Certain Discovery Responses 

and Request for Sanctions and 

ancillary papers (ECF Nos. 142 

(and Exhibits A-U thereto) and 

143.) 

58.0 $33,250 

Preparation and attendance at 

Court hearings for motion 

3.6 $2,250 

Drafting of Supplement to 

Motion to Compel Certain 

Discovery Responses and 

Request for Sanctions and 

ancillary papers, and preparation 

and filing of same (ECF Nos. 

148, 149, 150 (and Exhibits A-J 

thereto), and 152.) 

37.9 $20,687.50 

Review and analysis of 

Opposition to Motion to Compel 

Certain Discovery Responses 

and Request for Sanctions 

17.5 $10,937.50 

Drafting of Reply in Support of 42.8 $26,750 
 

5 

Task(s) Relate To: Total Hours Total Fees: 

Drafting of Reply in Support of 

Motion to Compel Certain 

Discovery Responses and 

Request for Sanctions and 

ancillary papers, and preparation 

and filing of same (ECF Nos. 

168 (and Exhibits A-N thereto), 

175, 176, and 177 (and Exhibit 

A thereto).) 

Total 210.5 $124,891.00 
 

6 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

 Executed on October 8, 2015 

By: /s/ Livia M. Kiser 

 Livia M. Kiser 
 

7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Andrew J. Chinsky, hereby certify that on October 8, 2015, I caused a copy of the 

foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such 

filing to all attorneys of record. 

 /s/ Andrew J. Chinsky 

 Andrew J. Chinsky