## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1327 L EON M ODR OWS KI, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. J OHN P IGATT O, F RANK P IGATT O, T AQ P ROPERT IE S, LLC , an d C AP PS M ANA GE MEN T, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C7002

—Ronal d A . G uzmán, Judge .
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 28, 2012

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 8, 2013

Befo re K ANN E , W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e . A p ar tytha t do es no t be arthe burden ofp er su asio n m ay m ove f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent “ by ‘ showing’

— that is, poi nti ng o ut to the dist ri ct cou rt

— th at th e r e is an ab sen ce of eviden ce to su p p ort the no nm ovi ng par ty’ s ca se. ” C el otex Corp. v. C atre tt, 477 U
. S. 317, 325 ( 1986 ). I f, after an ad equ a t e opp or-2 N o. 11

- 1327 t u n i t y f o r d i s c o v e r y, “ th e n o n - mo v a n td o e s n o tc o me for w ar d w ith ev id en c e t h at w ou ld rea so n ab ly p er m it the fi nd ero ff act to fi nd in h er fa vor o n a m ate ri alquestio n , then the cour t m ust en te r s um m ar y j udg m en t aga i nst he r. ” Wal dr i dgev. Am e r i ca n Hoec hs tCorp. , 24 F. 3d 91 8, 920 (7th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( emphas i s i n o r i g i na l ) ( ci ta ti o ns om i tte d). Thi s i s no t a n oner ous b urd en , y et “[ d]es pit e the r ud i m entar y nature ofthei r tas k, part i es ser ved w i th sum m ary j ud gm ent m oti ons often m i sco ncei ve w hat i s re quir ed of th em . ” Id
. at92 1. A s thi s ca se aptl y dem onst ra tes , s uc h misunderst andings can have hars h conse quences f orl i ti gants
.
I Leon M odro w ski ’ s te nure a s a pro pertym anage r f orTA Q Proper ti es and C apps M anage m ent c am e t o a c ontenti ous e nd i n 200 8. A l l ege dlyi n re tal i ati on f o r M o dr o wsk i ’ s unwi l l i ng ne ss t o s k i m p o n i m po r ta nt bui l di ngr epa irs, the de fen dan ts ( TAQ, Ca pps, a nd Joh n an d Fra n k P iga tt o) fire d M od ro w sk i, w ith h e ld $11, 000 i n w ages, had M odro w skij ai l ed, and l ock ed M od ro w sk i ou t o f h is pe rs on al Ya h oo em ail a c c ou n t. T h is fi na l a ff r o nt

— ap p ar en tly en ab led by M od ro w sk i’s illadv i se d de ci si o n t o mer g e hi s per so na l e m ai la cc o unt w ith th at of his em p loyers

— i s the f ocus ofthi s di spute. I n N ove m ber 2 009, M odro w skisued i n federa l co urt, chal l engi ng the defendants’ r efusalto r el i nquish c ontr ol over his p erson al em ailaccou nt
. Th e d istri c t cou rt iss u ed a te m p or ar y re st ra in in g or d er , bu t a p p a re n tly i t a cte d too l ate
. U pon re gai ni ng ac cess to hi s a ccount,N o. 11

- 1327 3 M od ro w sk i d isc ov er ed th at se ve ra l yea rs ’ w or th of h is perso nal co rr espondence had va ni shed. M od ro w ski a l l e g e s th a tth e d e fe n d a n t s ’ c o n d u c tv i o l a t e d the St or ed W i re and Ele ctr oni c Com m u n i cati ons A ct ( 18 U. S
. C. § 2 7 0 1 ) , the F e de r a l Wi r e T a pp i ngAc t( 1 8 U
. S
. C. § 2 5 1 1 ) , a nd the Co mput e r F r a ud a nd Abu s e A ct ( 18 U. S
. C. § 1 03 0)
. H is com pl ainta l so a ss er ts a ha ndful ofst ate
- l aw cl ai m s. The defe nd ants i ni ti ally m ove d to dism i ss al l o f M od ro w sk i’s c laim s p u rs u an t t o Fe d er al R u le of C ivil Pr o ce dur e 12 ( b) ( 6)
. T he di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the mo t i o n i n p a r t, d i s mi s s i n gth e fi r s tt wo fe d e r a l c l a i ms wi thpr ej udi ce s i nc e M o dr o wsk i a ckno wl edg ed thathe vo l u n t a r i l y l i n k e d h i s p e r s o n a l a c c o u n twi th th e d ef en dants’ busi ness acco unt. T h is conces si on was f atalto both cl ai m s, the cour t co ncl ud ed , and M odro w skidoes not cha ll en ge th is dec isi on on ap p eal. Th e d istri ct cou rt dism i ssed M odro w ski ’ s Com pu terFr aud and A buse A ct c l ai m o n a d i ffer ent g ro und : the com pla i nt f ai l ed to all ege an inj ury ofatl eas t $ 5, 000, as r equi re d fo r a nyc i v i l a c t i o n underthe s t a t ut e . S e e 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 030( c) ( 4) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) ; ( g)
. The di str i ct c ourtdi sm issed th i s c l a i m wi th o u t p r ej u d i c e , a ff o r d i n g Mo d r o ws k i t he opportunity t o el abor ate o n the eco nom i c har m cause d by the defendants’ act i ons. W hen M odro w skir etur ned i n J uly20 10 w ith hi s fi rs t a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t, th e d e fe n d a n t s mo v e d f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent. The window fo r fact disc ove ryhad clos ed a m o nth e ar l i er, a nd ne i th erpa r tyha d a sk ed th e cour t f oran extensi on. T he r eco rd atthatpoi nt, defendants4 N o. 11

- 1327 urge d, had “a co m ple te l ac k of p ro ofco ncer ni ng al l o f th e es se nt i ale l ement [ s] o fthe c o unt s co nt aine d i n P l ainti ff’ s F i rs t A m en ded Com pla i nt. ” S i nce M odro w ski w oul d be unabl e t o prove hi s cl ai m s a t t ria l, th e defendants ar gued, sum m ar y j ud gm ent in thei r f avo r w as r e qu i r e d. R ath er than com ing forw ard w ith e v iden ce to su p p ort th e all egation s in his com p lai nt or aski n g t he cou rt for m ore tim e , M o d row ski respon d ed by attac king p erceived de fi cienc ies ofthe d efend an ts’ m otion. S p ecifi cal l y, M odro w skip ointed out that the defendants’ m oti on “ d[i d] no t co ntai n a Loca l Ru le 56. 1 S tat em ent, c i t e t o any a dmi s s ib l e e v i de nc e , o r c i t e t o a nys up p orti ng autho ri ty f orthe substa nti ve l aw o fthe cas e.” As M o dr o wsk i s aw i t, he b o r e no o bl i g at i o n t o r es po nd to such a defe cti ve su m m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on be cause the de fe nd a nt s “ ha d no t met the i r i ni t i a l b ur de n as m o va nt s. ” M o dr o wsk i c ho se i ns te ad to c o ns tr ue the defe nd ants’ m oti on a s a se cond Rule 12 ( b) ( 6) m oti on to dism i ss. Overthe cour se ofni ne page s, he e xplai ned how hi s fa ctualal l ega ti ons sat i sfi ed eve ryel em ent o f each o fhi s s i x cl ai m s. T he d is t rict court w as no t sw ayed by M od row ski’s a r g um en t. N oting M od row ski’s fai lure to offer “ any ev i den ce i n r es po ns e to de fen dan ts ’ mot i on, l eta l o ne ev id en c e s u f ficie n t t o ra ise a tr iab le iss u e o f fac t,” it gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent to the defendants o n Mo d r o ws k i ’ s C o mp u t e r Fr a u d a n d A b u s e A c tc l a i m. The c ou rt then re l i nquished j uri sdic ti on o verthe sta te law cla im s a n d te rm in at ed th e c as e.N o. 11

- 1327 5 II On a ppea l, M o dr o wsk i r en ews the sa m e ar g um en t he m ade to th e d i str i ct c ourt, i nsi sti ng tha t hi s o bl i gat i on t o p o i ntt o e v i de nc e i n hi s f avo r w a s n e v e r t r i g g e r e d, because the defe nd ants f ai l ed to m eetthei r i ni ti al bur deno fpr o duct i o n. Fed e r a l R ul e o fCi v i l P r o c e du r e 5 6 i mpo s e s a n i ni ti al bu rd en of p rod uc tion on th e pa rty m ovin g f or sum m ary j ud gm ent t o i nfo rm the dist ri ct c ourtwh y a tr ial is not necess ar y. C e lo tex , 4 77U. S
. a t 32 3. W he r e th e no nm o va nt bear s the ul ti m ate burden o fper suasi on o n a parti cul ar i ssue, h owever, the re quir em ents that Rule 56 i m poses on the m ovi ng p ar ty ar e no t o nero us. I t doe s no t re quir e the m ovi ng par ty to “suppo rt it s m oti on with affi davi ts oro thersi m i l arm ate ri al s nega t i ngthe opponent’ s cl ai m . ” Id. (em p ha sis i n origi na l)
. Rat he r, th e m ova nt’ s ini ti alburden “ m ay be di schar ged by

‘ showing’

— th at is, p oint out to the d istri ct cou rt

— that th er e is anabs en ce o fe vi den ce t o s uppo r t th e no nm ovi ng par ty’ s ca se. ” Id
. at 325. U pon such a sh ow i ng, th e no nm o va ntmus t the n “ m ak e a sh o wi ngs uffi ci en t to est abl i sh the exi ste nce of a n e lem ent e sse nti alto that party ’ s ca se. ” Id . a t 3 22. The nonm ova nt nee d not depose he r ow n w itness es or prod uc e e v id en ce in a form that w oul d be a dm iss ible attr i al, but she m ust “ go beyo nd the p lead i ngs” ( e.g ., p ro d u c e a ffid av its , d ep os itions, answ ers to i nt errogatories, or ad m issi ons on fi le) , id
. at32 4, to dem onst ra te that ther e i s e vi dence “up on w hi ch a j ury coul d properl y pr oce ed to fi nd a ver dict ” in h er fav or . A nders on v. Libe rty Lo bb y, Inc. , 47 7 U.S
. 24 2, 251 (1986 ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks an d citation om itted ).6 N o. 11

- 1327 Mo d r o ws k i h a s i d e n t i fi e d se v e r a l s u p p o s e d s h o r t c o mi n g s o f th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n, b u t n o n e o f th e se fl a ws obvi ate d his r esp onsibi l i ty to “go bey ond the pl eadi ngs” i n o ppo sings um m ary j udg m en t. F i r st, he f au l ts the defen dan ts f o r f ai l i ngt o fi l e a Lo ca l Rul e 56
. 1 S ta te m en t ofM ate ri alFa cts. U nd erthe N or ther n Dis trict o f I ll inois’s L ocal Ru le 56. 1, a p arty m oving for sum m ary j ud gm ent or dinar i l y m ust fi l e “ a s tat em ent o fm ate ri al f ac ts a s to whi ch th e m o vingpa r tyc o nt en ds th er e i s no genui ne i ssue and that e nti tl e the m ovi n g p ar ty to a j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw . ” N
. D
. I ll. L.R. 56. 1(a)( 3). The l o ca l r ul es pr o vi de th atf ai l ur e to p r o vi de su cha st at ementc an“ co ns ti tu te [ ] g r o unds for de ni alo fthe m ot ion ,” an d w e h av e “ c on sis te n tly an d rep ea te d ly u p h e l d a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n t o r e qu i r e s t r i c tc o mpli ance with i ts l oca l r ule s g ove rn in g sum m ar y j ud gm en t.” S ee Koszola v. B oard of Ed uc. of City of Chi. , 38 5 F
. 3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i ti ng M e t r opol i t an Li f e In s. Co. v. Johns on , 297 F.3d 55 8, 56 2 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). I t does not f ol l ow, how eve r, thatdi str i ct c ou rt s ca nnot ex er ci se the i r di scret i o n i n amor e l en i en t di r ec ti o n: l i ti g an ts ha ve no r i g htt o de m an d s tri cte nf o r ce m en t of loc al ru les b y d ist ric t jud ge s. St e vo v . Fras or, 66 2 F. 3d 880, 88 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) . T o the c ontr ar y, unl ess th e di st r i ctc o ur t “e nf o r ce [ s] ( o r r el ax [ es]) the r ul es unequal l y a s be tw een the par ti es, ” the deci si on “ to ove rl oo k any tr an sg ressi on [ ofthe l oca l r ule s] i s l eft t o the di str i ct cour t’ s di scr eti on. ” Id
. ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s an d ci tat i on o m i tte d). N o abuse ofdi scr eti on o ccurr ed her e. Re l at edl y, M o dr o wsk i f au l ts the de fen dan ts f o r f ai l i ng to supp or t thei r f actualposi ti ons w i th a p p ro pri ate ci ta-N o. 11

- 1327 7 ti o ns t o the r ec o r d, s ee Rul e 56 ( c) (1 ) ( A). Thi s ar g um en t re fl ects a fund am entalm i sund er sta nd i ng o fthe lega l b as is for th e d efe n d an ts ’ m ot ion . Th e d efe n d an ts d id not m ove f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent b ase d on “a ffi rm ati ve ev i den ce that n egat es a n e ss en ti ale l emento fthe no nm o vingpa r ty ’ s cl ai m ”; r athe r, they wer e f o l l o wi ng a “s o m ewha t t r i ck i er ” path t o s um m ar y j udg m en t by ass er ting that the “ nonm ovi ng par ty’ s e vi dence [ was ] ins uffi ci en t to e st ab l i sha n e ss en ti ale l emento fthe no nmo v i ngp a r t y ’ s c l a i m . ” C elo tex C o rp . , 47 7 U.S
. at33 1 ( Brennan, J
. , di sse nt in g). Both a pp ro aches ar e no w w ri tte n i nto the Rul es. S ee R. 56 ( c) ( 1) (B ) (“A party ass er ti ng tha t a fa ct c annot be .
. . ge nuinel y di sputed m ust s up portthe ass er ti on bysho w i ng . . . thatan advers e par ty cannot produce adm i ssibl e e vi dence to supp o r tthe f a c t
. ” ) ; Adv i s o r y Co mm i t t e e No t e s o n 2 0 10 A m endm ents to R. 56 ( “Subdi vi si on ( c) ( 1)(B ) r eco gni zes th at a p arty ne ed not alw ays point to sp ecific re c o rd m ate ri al s. . . . [ A ] party w h o d oes nothave the tr i al burden ofpro du cti on m ay re l y o n a s how i ng tha t a partyw h o d oes have the tr i alburden ca nnot pro du ce ad m issible eviden ce to carry its burd en as to the fact.”). Focu sing o n a repres en tative elem en t of M od row ski’s cl ai m s hel ps to i l l ustr ate the differ ence between thes e two a ppr o ac he s. To pr eva i l o n h i s Compute r F r au d an d Abus e Act cl ai m , M o dr o wski w oul d ha ve ha d the burden of proving that the defe nd ants’ acti ons “cause d [a ] l os s . . . du r i ng a ny 1

- y e a r pe r i o d
. . . a g g r e g a t i ng atl eas t $5,000 in v a lue.” 18 U
. S. C
. § 1030(c)(4)( A )( i) (I ). W ere the defendants ai m i ng a ffi rm ati vel y t o negat e that el ement

— sa y, by as se rt in g t h at th e e vid en c e ir re fu ta b ly8 N o. 11

- 1327 showed M odro w ski ’ s inj ury tot al ed only $2, 500

— th e ab se n c e o f cit at ion s t o t h e e vid en c e o n rec or d w o u ld be pr obl em atic. But that w as not the defendants’ st ra teg y. T h e y a ss er te d th at, i f th e c as e w en t t o t ria l, M od ro w sk i w ou ld be u n ab le t o p ro d u c e e vid en c e s u ffici ent t o m eet hi s b ur deno fpr o vingtha t hi s i nj ur y e xceeded $5, 000. M odro w skico unters that he w as und er n o ob liga tio n t o c on d u c t fo rm al d isc ov er y, an d th is is cer tai nl y t rue. S ee Prax ai r, Inc . v. H i ns haw & C ulbe r t s on , 23 5 F .3d 10 2 8, 10 32 (7t h C ir. 20 00 ) (“D isc ov er y is c os tly an d i n c a s es in w h ich th e s ta ke s a re sm all, or t h er e is a cl ear l y di sposi ti ve l ega l ar gum ent, f orbear i ng to co nduc t di sc o veryi s no t ne g l i g en ce . ”)
. Buto nc e th e d efendants poi nted out the g ap that they bel i eve d ex i st ed i n Mo d r o wsk i ’ s ca se , he was obl i g ed to po i nt to ev id en c e t h at, i f be liev ed by th e t rie r o ffa c t, w ou ld be s uffi ci ent t o show that hi s l oss di d in fact exce ed $5,000. M od row ski could ha v e com e forw ard w ith affi d avits from w ou ld-be bu siness pa rtne rs w ho w ere u n ab le t o c on ta c t h im w h ile h e w as l o c ke d ou t o f h is ac co unt; he c o ul d ha ve s ubmi tt ed r ec ei pts r efl ec ting the fe es h e pai d to procur e dupli cate s o fl ostfi nanci al an d b i l l i ngr ec o r ds; or perha ps he mightha ve c o nte nt ed hi m se l f wi th a per so na l affi dav i t at te st i ng to the num b er o fhour s he devote d to re cove ri ng hi s e m ai l s. Se e B utts v. A urora Health C are, In c. , 38 7 F
. 3d 921, 92 5 ( 7th Cir
. 20 04) ( cour t m ay consi der s el f

- ser vin g a ffi davi ts at su m m ar y jud gm e n t i fth ey are ba se d on p er so n al k n ow ledg e an d s etf o r ths pec i fi c f ac ts )
. I ns te ad, he r es te d e xc l usi vel y o n hi s co m pla i nt, and t h is w as pla i nl y inadequ ate
. Cel ot ex Corp. , 477 U
. S. at 325 (Ru le 56 does n ot “all ow []N o. 11

- 1327 9 a p ar ty op p os in g s u m m ar y ju d gm en t t o re sis t a p ro p er ly m ad e m otion by referenc e only to i ts p lead ings.”). I nd eed, M odro w sk i m i ght ha ve concl usi vel y e stabl i s h e d mo s to fth e ma t e r i a l f a c t s a l l e g e d i n h i s c o mpla i nt si m plyby hi ghl i ghti ng the defendants’ f ai l ure to fi l e a ti m el y a nsw erto hi s fi rs t a m ended com pla i nt. G en e r a l ly, a d efe n d an t m u st se rv e a n an sw er w ith in 21 d ay s of re c eip t of se rv ice of a c om p lain t (o r w i th in 60 days i fshe has wai ved se rv i ce) ; f ai l ure to deny an al l eg at i o n c o ns ti tu te s ana dm i ss i o n. F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(a)(1) ; F ED . R. C IV . P. 8 (b) ( 6) ( “A n al l ega ti on

— o th ertha n o ne re l ati ng to the am ount o fdam age s

— i s admi tt ed i f a re sponsi ve ple adingi s r equi re d and the al l ega ti on i s no t de ni e d. ” )
. Whi l e s e r v i nga R ul e 1 2 mo t i o n t o l l s the de a dl i ne f ora defe nd ant t o fi l e a n answer, fi lin g a Rule 56 m oti on has no such effect. Com pare F ED . R. C IV . P. 12 ( a) ( 4) wi thF ED . R. C IV . P. 56
. The defendants’ unor thodox str ate gy ofr espondi ng to M odro w ski ’ s fi rs t a m ended c om p l ai nt with a m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, unacco m pan i ed bya ny o th err es po ns i ve pl ea di ng, was thus ri sky, because M odro w skico uld have poi nted to “a dm i ssi ons on fi l e” to supp or t hi s a l l ega ti ons. S ee C elo tex , 47 7 U
. S
. a t 32 4. M o dr o wsk i ha d the b ur deno fpr es en ting th es e ar g um en ts t o the di st r i ctc o urt, ho wev er, a nd he f ai l ed to do s o. Fi nal l y, M odro w skiar gues that the defendants f ai l ed to m eetthei r i ni ti alburden be cau se t h ei r m oti on f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent “d oes notm enti on the st atute und erwh i ch def en d an ts bel i eve theyar e e nti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent. ” I t is true that the defendants’ m oti on10 N o. 11

- 1327 f ai l ed to r eci te the ind ivid u al e l em ents ofea ch of M o dr o wsk i ’ s cl ai m s. I ns te ad, th e defen dan ts m ade th e m or e g ener ala ss erti on that “ ther e [ w as] a com ple te l ack o fpr o o fc o nc erni nga l l o fthe e ssenti ale l ement [ s] o fthe c o u n t s c o n t a i n e d i n P l a i n t i ff’ s F i r s t A m e n d e d C o mpl aint
. ” The defen dan ts th en su ppo r te d th i s argu m en t by d iscus sing M od row ski’s fai lure to con d uc tdiscov ery and by ci ti ng to co ntro llin g l ega l autho ri ty ( e . g. , C elo tex ; Ande rs on ; M ats u s hi t a El e c . In du s . Co
. v . Ze n i t h Rad io Corp
. , 47 5 U
. S. 574 (19 86) )
. M odro w ski ’ s thor ough, tho ugh m i sgui ded, r es po ns ive fi l i ng

— w h ich ex p lain ed h ow h is c o mp l a i n tv a l i d l y st a t e d e a c h o fh i s s i x c l a i ms

— s h o ws th atM o d r o ws k i u n d e r s t o o d a tl e a s tth e s c o p e o ft he d efe n d an ts ’ m ot ion . Th is m ay h av e b ee n th e b ar e m in imum, b uti n thi s c a s e i ts uffi c e d.

III W e A F F I R M the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

4- 8- 13