$658.80 for time spent by one attorney in appearing in court on Kraft’s motion for sanctions
on July 16, 2003, on Plump’s motion for leave to file his response on August 22,

2003, and at the argument on Kraft’s motion on September 19, 2003.

Thus, sanctions are to be paid by Plump to Kraft in a total amount of $3,661.50, That

amount shall be paid by January 30, 2004,

IT IS SO ORDERED. 4
Geraldine Soat Brgwn ‘

United States Magistrate Judge

December 23, 2003


MCGUIRBWOODS LLP

VENDOR: _INTREP CHECKNO.: 120016
REF. # INV. # DATE INVOICE AMOUNT. INVOICE DESCRIPTION [AMOUNT PAID]
1057773 | 4378032650 06-26-03 483.00 Return check to Mary Lou Ryan 483.00
- Chicago Office
a]
Total Amount of Check: 483.00
Bae
G
wa 200 abu

BOB Aba27HaN 00329980997 2



Date

06/07/03

06/08/03

06/09/03

06/09/03

07/08/03

07/09/03

07/09/03

07/10/03

07/11/03

07/11/03

07/16/03

\LAB\405517.1

Description

Prepare for Plaintiff's continued
deposition by reviewing previous
deposition and Plaintiff's discovery
responses and by drafting outline for
continued deposition

Preparation for Plaintiff's continued
deposition by reviewing draft of
continued deposition outline

Revise continued deposition outline
and finish preparing for continued
deposition of Plaintiff

Attend continued deposition of
Plaintiff

Analyze Plaintiff's continued
deposition testimony and allegations
in complaint for use in motion for
sanctions

Review C. Phanthavong’s outline
regarding motion for sanctions/to
compel discovery and draft notes
regarding same

Review deposition testimony
regarding motion for sanctions/to
compel

Draft motion for sanctions due to
discovery abuses

Draft and revise motion for sanctions
and memorandum of law in support
thereof

Review/revise draft motion for
sanctions

Attend hearing on motion for
sanctions/to compel

Timekeeper

CEP

MMM

MMM

MMM

CEP

MMM

MMM

CEP

CEP

MMM

CEP

Time Billed

2.6

12

1.6

2.4

3.3

1.3

1.1

1.1

6.9

1.8

Amount

491.40

313.20

417.60

626.40

653.40

351.00

297.00

217.80

1,366.20

351.00

356.40


RECHIVED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS NOV - 6 2003
EASTERN DIVISION Maciorn a
oe tAGist RATE JUDGE
GERALDINE SOAT BROWN
DANIEL PLUMP UNITED STATES DISTRICT Couns
Plaintiff, No. 02 C 7754
vs. Hon. Judge Gottschail

KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Brown

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF FEES AND COSTS!

ATTORNEY RATES

Rates from May 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003:

Partner: Mary Margaret Moore (MMM)
Associate: Christy E. Phanthavong (CEP)

Rates Beginning July 1, 2003:

Partner: Mary Margaret Moore
Associate: Christy E. Phanthavong
FEES

Date Description

05/30/03 Draft letter to R. Samuels regarding
scheduling Plaintiffs continued
deposition

06/02/03 Communicate with R. Samuels
regarding scheduling Plaintiff's
continued deposition

$261.00/hr.
$189.00/hr.

$270.00/hr.
$198.00/hr.

Timekeeper Time Billed? Amount

CEP 2 $ 37.80

CEP 2 37.80

' This Statement of Fees and Costs is being served on Plaintiff pursuant to the Court’s

October 6, 2003 Memorandum Opinion and Order.

? Time billed is expressed in tenths of an hour.

Exhibit A



DISBURSEMENTS

Date Description

07/09/03 Deposition Transcript: Spherion —
Appearance fee at, and original and
one copy of transcript of, deposition of

D. Plump on June 9, 2003, including
delivery charge (see Exhibit A)

TOTAL:

COPY CHARGES

Date Description

Notice of Motion, Motion and
Memorandum of Law In Support of
Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Or,
In The Alternative, To Compel

Reply in Support of Defendant’s
Motion for Sanctions Or, In the
Alternative to Compel

TOTAL:

TOTAL

No. Pages
X3 copies

60 pages X 3 =
180 pages

33 pages X 3 = 99
pages

Dated: October 20, 2003 Respectfully submitted,

Amount

$ 483.00

$ 483.00

Three Copies
at .$10/per

page
$ 18.00

9.90

$ 27.90

$9,824.10

KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Onde £ PLA

One of Its Attorneys

Timothy C, Klenk

Mary Margaret Moore
Christy E. Phanthavong
MCGUIREWOODS LLP

150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 558-1000 - Telephone
(312) 750-8600 — Facsimile

\WLABV405517.1


Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Joan B. Gottschall Sitting Judge if Other | Geraldine Soat Brown
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02. C 7754 DATE 12/23/2003
CASE Plump vs. Kraft Foods
TITLE
(In the following box (a) indicate the party (iting the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintil', and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: ‘of the motion being presented]
DOCKET ENTRY: :
aw Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) im) Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) QO Status hearing{held/continued to} {set fos/re-set for] on set for at
(6) ia) Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on set for at .
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at _.
8) {Bench/Jury trial) [Hearing] held/continued to at _
(9) Qa This case is dismissed (with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocalRule 41.1 OFRCP4I(@)1) OO FRCP41(a)(2)
(10) = {Other docket entry] _ For the reasons set out in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, sanctions are
to be paid by plaintiff to defendant in a total amount of $3,661.50, That amount shall be paid by 1/30/04.
All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the case is returned to the
wien Fyrom
ab @ {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court
No notices required, umber of oes
| Notices mailed by judge’s stalf, ise’ 3 €UU
Notified counsel by telephone. te docketed
Docketing to mail notices.
Y | Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Lunas J Woot
u “ 12/24/2003
courtroom ; date aie novice
GR deputy's Ze Wy tes on
initials



ose

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Christy E. Phanthavong, an attorney, certify that I served the foregoing Defendant's
Statement of Fees and Costs by sending a copy to:
Ronald S. Samuels
Ronald S. Samuels and Associates
29 S. LaSalle, Suite 434
Chicago, IL 60603

via messenger delivery, on this 20th day of October, 2003.

Onikn EPA

Christy‘. Phanthavong



Date Description Timekeeper Time Billed”

08/19/03 Review Plaintiffs response to MMM 4
Defendant’s motion for sanctions and
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file
same

08/22/03 Attend hearing on Plaintiff's motion CEP 6
for extension of time to file response
to sanctions motion

09/01/03 Draft reply in support of motion for CEP 3
sanctions

09/02/03 Draft reply in support of motion for CEP 1.8
sanctions

09/03/03 Review and revise reply in support of MMM 2.4
motion for sanctions

09/03/03 Draft and revise reply in support of CEP 52
motion for sanctions

09/04/03 Revise reply in support of sanctions CEP 3.1
motion

09/05/03 Review revised reply brief in support MMM 8
of motion for sanctions

09/05/03 Revise reply in support of sanctions CEP 2
motion and prepare same for filing

09/19/03 Review briefs in preparation for MMM 8
hearing on motion for sanctions/to
compel

09/19/03 Prepare for hearing on motion for CEP 9
sanctions/to compel

09/19/03 Attend hearing on motion for MMM 7
sanctions/to compel

09/19/03 Attend hearing on motion for CEP 7
sanctions/to compel
TOTAL: 42.9

3

\\LAB\405517.1

Amount

108.00

113.40

56.70

340.20

648.00

982.80

585.90

216.00

37.80

216.00

170.10

189.00

132.30

$9,313.20



P. 30(d)(3): costs and attorneys’ fees awarded are those incurred as a result of the frustration of fair
deposition examination. Thus, time that may have been appropriately spent in order to represent the
client might not necessarily qualify as time that can be reimbursed as a sanction. The fees awarded
must also be reasonable. In this case, the fees shown on Kraft’s statement for time spent by attorney
Christy E. Phanthavong, the principal drafter of Kraft’s motion and memoranda, in drafting those
documents totals $3,587.40 ($1,584 for motion and memorandum (8 hours x $198) + $2,003.40
for reply brief (10.6 hours x $189)).' However, the court concludes, in the interests of justice, that
the amount sought for that activity is more than the court deems appropriate as a sanction in this
situation, and reduces the amount to $1,500.00
Having reviewed Kraft’s statement of fees and Plump’s Answer which does not dispute any
specific charge, rate or item, the court orders that Plump pay Kraft the following costs and fees
pursuant to the October 6, 2003 order:
$483.00 for the court reporter's charge for appearance and transcript of Plump’s deposition
session on June 9, 2003;
$27.90 for photocopying charges:
$991.80 for half the time spent by attorney Mary Margaret Moore in preparing for the June
9, 2003 session of Plump’s deposition and all the time spent by attorney Mary
Margaret Moore in taking the June 9, 2003 session of Plump’s deposition;
$1,500.00 for time spent by one attorney preparing, drafting and filing Kraft’s motion for

sanctions, the memorandum in support of that motion, and Kraft’s reply brief; and

‘Although Kraft’s statement states that Ms. Phanthavong’s billing rate changed from $189
to $198 as of July 1, 2003, the statement calculates the time spent on the reply brief in September
2003 at $189 per hour.



12, 2003, this court declined to award sanctions sought in Kraft’s second Motion for Sanctions and
to Compel [dkt 36], but allowed Plaintiff's Answer to Petition for Sanctions to stand as Plump’s
response to Kraft’s statement of fees. [Dkt 41.]

Kraft’s statement (attached as Appendix A to this order) seeks a total award of sanctions in
the amount of $9,824.10. Plump’s Answer does not dispute any specific items in Kraft’s statement
of fees and costs. Rather, Plump argues generally that:

[t]he petition is full of unclear and unallocated efforts attributed to the pursuit of

erroneous and inappropriate discovery. There was significant time spent in review of

moot concerns. There was duplication in undertaking, review of and editing of issues

that did not direct themselves to probative outcomes of the lawsuit.

(Pl.’s Answer Pet. Sanctions at 3.) Plump also argues (without any verification or other factual
support) that he is without funds to pay attorneys’ fees as a sanction. (/d. at 4.)

Contrary to Plump’s argument, Kraft’s statement of fees and costs is not unclear or
unallocated. As directed by the October 6, 2003 order, the statement shows the date the work was
performed, the time spent, the attorney performing the services and the applicable billing rate. The
activities for which fees are sought are described in reasonable detail. As to Plump’s argument that
there was “erroneous and inappropriate discovery,” the second session of Plump’s deposition was
unproductive because Plump failed to produce documents he had been ordered to produce pursuant
to the May 15, 2003 order and refused to answer questions directed to the topics covered by that
order. That is why Kraft was awarded its fees and costs.

In deciding how much Plump will be ordered to pay, it must be remembered that the amounts

are being ordered as a sanction and, accordingly, the amount to be awarded must be “caused by the

failure” of the other party to obey the previous order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). See also Fed. R. Civ.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL PLUMP )
Plaintiff, ) & ie)
) Meow MS
v. ) Case No. 02 C 7754
)
KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC. } Judge Joan Gottschail
Defendant. ) Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Geraldine Soat Brown, Magistrate Judge

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order of October 6, 2003 [dkt 35], sanctions were entered
against plaintiff Daniel Plump pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) and 30(d)(3). (Mem. Op. and
Order at 11-12), Specifically, Plump was ordered to pay the costs and fees incurred by defendant
Kraft Foods North America, Inc. (“Kraft”) in preparing, filing and arguing Kraft’s Motion for
Sanctions, or, in the Alternative to Compe! [dkt 27] and in taking the second session of Plump’s
deposition on June 9, 2003. (/d.) Kraft was directed to serve a statement of fees and costs by
October 20, 2003, and Plump was ordered to serve a statement of any specific item disputed and to
pay any undisputed amount by November 1, 2003. (/d. at 12.) The parties were directed to follow
Local Rule 54.3(e) and (f) with respect to any disputed item. (/d.)

At the status hearing on November 6, 2003, Kraft’s counsel reported that they had submitted
a statement of fees pursuant to the October 6, 2003 order, but had not received any payment from

Plump or any response except Plaintiff's Answer to Petition for Sanctions. [Dkt 39.] On December

“)