The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0593n.06 No. 08-4026 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MIC HA EL T. US ZAK, Plain tif f, SIDNEY NEISS ER F REEMAN, Ap pe lla nt,
v. YELLO W TRANSP ORTATION, INC., et al., De fe nd an ts, and LOCAL 407 TRUCK D RIVERS UNION, IN TER NA TIO NA L BR OTHE RH OOD OF TEA M STER S, C HA UF F EU RS, WA RE HOU SEM EN & H ELP ER S OF AMERICA; INTERNATIONAL BR OTHE RH OOD OF TEA M STER S, De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle es.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Ap pe a l f ro m th e Un ite States District Court for the Norther n District of Ohio

BEFORE: COLE an d COOK, Circ uit Jud ges; COHN, Distr ict Judge. * COHN, District

Judge. This is a dis pute over sanctions. In the under ly ing c ase, A ppellee Yellow Tra

nsportation (YT) terminated the employ ment of pl aintiff Mi chae l T. Uszak (Uszak) and Curtis Castl e (Castle) afte r they g ot into a fistfight at work. Uszak and his wife J udy (Mrs. Uszak)Us

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 2 - (collec tively , pl ai n t i ff

s ) s ued YT, A

ppellees Tr

uck Dr ivers Union L ocal 407 ( L ocal 407) and the I nternational Brothe rhood of Te amsters (the I BT) (collec tively , the unions), and YRC Worldwide (YRC). Plaint i ff

s made a hy brid claim ag ainst YT for wrong ful termination under section 301 of the L abor Manag ement R elations Act (L MRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and aga inst L ocal 407 for violation of its duty of fair repr esentation in the grieva nce of his discharg e (toge ther, 301/dfr). Uszak’s theory was that the union a

nd the company

targ eted him for a b eating and te rmination beca use he w on elec tion as union steward a g ainst Castle, a m ember of the “ ruling ‘Hoff

a’ ticke t.” The district c ourt disposed of the c ase on summary judgme nt a g ainst Uszak, a dec ision affirmed by this court in Uszak v. Y ellow Trans

p., Inc. , No. 07-3918, 2009 WL40002 (6th Cir. J an. 7, 2009). Whil e the c ase w as still i n t h e m o t ion stag e, the district cour t found plaintiffs’ attorney Sidney Fr eema n (Appe llant) liabl e to A

p pellees f or sanc tions under Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e 1 1 an d 3 7 ( a ) i nt h e f

o r m o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i nt h e a m o u n to f

$ 1 3 , 4 1 4
. 5 0
. A m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ( M J)
rec ommended to the di strict court sanctions in the foll owing amounts, display ed in t abular form, as
re a so na ble a tto rn e y

fe e s in a Re po rt and Re c omm e nd a tio n ( MJRR) a do pte d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt :

Attorn ey f ees allowe d on f irst appl ic at ions Attorn ey f ees allowe d on supp lem ental appl ic at ions (f

or san ct io n s h ear in gs af te r uns ucc es sf

ul settlem ent conference ) T ota l f ee s bef ore f indingle as t s ev er e sanction likely

to deter (L SSL D) f

or Rul e 11 v iola tions L SSL D f or R ule 11 v iola tions f ound to be $10,000, s plit

50/50; no re as oning or breakdown g iven FINAL AM OUNTS OF SANCTION S Rul e 11 L oca l 407 T he IBT $ 3,781.25

3,406.25 $ 2,906.25 2,550.00 $ 6,687.50

5, 956.25 $ 5,000. 00 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00

5,000.00
Rul e 37 Y T 1,400.50 2,014.00 3,414.50 Not a pplic abl e 3,414.50Us

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 3 - G RA ND TO TAL $13,414.50 Th e re c or d is no t c le ar a s to ho w the fe e s w e re a pp or tio ne d b e tw e e n th e Rul e 11 iss ue s. Appellant now a

ppeals. Appe llees have waived br iefingand ora l argument.

I. ISS UES ON APP EAL Ap pe lla nt r a ise s thre e iss ue s o n a pp e a l: (1) Whether the district cour t erre d in gr anting the unions $10,000 in sanctions wher e they

jointly moved for Rule 11 f

ees ba sed on plaintiffs’ i n cl u s i on of a cla im under 301/dfr f

or Mrs. Uszak, a non-union employ ee, and naming of t h e IB T a s a d e f

e n d an t , an d w h e r e p l a i n t i f f s a m e n d e d t h e c o m

p l a i n t b y a court-e stablished deadline; (2 ) Whe the r t

he di stric t c ourt

e rr e d in c on c lud ingthat Y T w a s e nti tle d to $ 3 , 4 1 4
. 5 0 i nat t o rn ey s fe es u n d er R u l e 3 7 (a ), wh er e p l ai n t i ff

s ’ r ef u s al t o s i gn m ed i cal r elea ses re sulted in the court’s g rantinga motion to compel discovery ; and (3) Whether the district c ourt err ed in c onsidering supplemental applications for attorn e y f e e s f o r c o n f e r e n c e s th a t to o k p la c e a f te r Ap p e ll e e s tu

r n e d down Appellant’s se ttlement offer of $7,500. For the re asons that follow, we AFF I RM the distric t court’s Rule 37 sanctions, including supplemental fe es, totaling $3,414.5 0 , and R EVERSE the court’s Rule 11 sa nctions, including supplemental fe es, totaling $10,000.00.

II. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY The fa cts and proc edura l history are from Appe llant’s brief a nd the re cord on a

ppeal. A. The or igi nal c om pla intUs

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 4 - Th e ini tia l c omp la int

wa s in tw o c ounts : ( 1) a

30 1/d fr c ount by Mr . an d Mrs . Uszak a g a ins t L oc a l 40 7, the I B T, and

YT ; and (2 ) a Wro ng fu l D isc ha

rg e c ount u

nd e r O hio law by Mr
. and Mr s. Uszak ag ainst YT. B. The unio ns j oin tl y m ov e for sa nc ti ons On J une 8, 2006, the unions c ertified mailing of notice of their intention to move f or sanctions against plainti ffs a nd Appellant for

violating Rule 11(b) ; they filed a joint motion eight da y s late r, June 16 . T he un ion s sa id t hat Mr s. Us zak

c ou ld n ot b ri nga

c la im und e r 3 01 /df

r b e c a us e she wa s not a union employ ee, a nd the I BT did not owe a duty of f ai r re p re sentation to Uszak beca use it was not the ce rtified bar g aining repr esentative of Uszak or a ny YT em p l o y ee, nor

a signatory to the NMFA
. C. The di strict

court se ts deadlin e for am endin g pleadin gs On J une 16, 2006, the district cour t issued a ca se mana g ement orde r setting J uly 17, 2006, as the c utoff date for a

mending pleading s and addingnew pa rties. D. P lai nt iffs m ov e to am e nd c om pla int On July 17 , 2 00 6, pla int if

fs mov e d to a me nd

the ir c omp la int . T he a me nd e d c omp la int : (1) Droppe d Mrs. Uszak from the 301/dfr claims in count 1; (2) Elaborated on the cla ims ag ainst YT for wrong ful dischar g e in count 2; (3 ) Ad de d c ount 3 , a

state c la im b y

Mr . a nd Mr s. Us zak

fo r a ssa ult a g a ins t Curt is; (4) Added c ount 4, a state c laim by Mr. Uszak for intentional tort ag ainst YT; (5 ) Ad de d c ount 5 , a state c la im b y

Mrs
. Us zak

fo r l os s o f c on so rt ium , p re suma bly arising from the a ssault and intentional tort claims; andUs

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 5 - (6) Added c ount 6 (mislabeled “F ifth Count”), a state c laim by Mr. and Mrs. U szak for punitive damag es. Three months later, the district cour t gr anted plaintiffs’ motion to amend. E. The di strict

court im p o s es rule 37 sanctions up on granting YT’s mot ion to com pel discovery Al s o i nJu l y

Y T m a d e a

w r i t t e nd i s c o v e r

y r e qu e s tt h a tp l a i n t i f

f s s i g nm e d i c a l r e l e a se s. Plaintiffs refuse d to sign the rele ases on the ba sis that no such provision ex ists under the F eder al Rul e s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure and the re qu ir e me nt f

or bla nk e t r e le a ses wou ld vio late the ir ri g ht t o
c on fi de nti a lity

un de r t he ph y sic ian- patie nt p ri vil e g e . O n Se pte mbe r 20, 20 06 , YT fi le d a motio n to compel discove ry . Thirty -five da y s later, plaintiffs r esponded in opposition. After a status confe renc e reg arding outstanding discovery disputes, the di strict court gra nted t he motion; its order , iss ue d in late Oc tob e r, re a d in

re le va nt p art : Be cause Plaintiffs have put the phy sical and me ntal condition of Michae l T. Us zak and Judy C. U szak at is su e in t his c a se , a

nd sin c e , p ur su ant t o R. C. § 2317.02(B )(1) (a) (iii), the phy sician -p at ient privileg e is waive d by the filing of a civil act i o n as to communications historically and ca usally related to claimed phy sical and me ntal injuries, Plaintiffs are or dere d to immediately sign a nd return the medical a

uthorization and relea ses serve d upon them by Def endant Ye llow Transpor tation. This Co urt notes the author ity cited by Plaintiffs in their tardy res pons e to D e fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n to Com pe l, c ite d a s M ann v. Unive rsity of Cin c inn ati , 824 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D. 1993), i s clea rly distinguishable f

rom the instant situation. I n M ann , counsel for the Univer sity

is s u ed s u b poenas to its own client seeki n g production of the pla intiff-student’s medica l rec ords, without an orde r of court or t he patient’ s relea ses. Her e, De fenda nt, Yellow Tra

nsportation, provided the appr o p ri ate r elea ses for Plaintiffs’ sig nature s, and soug ht a cour t order a fter the executed re lease s were not returne d. I f Pl a in ti f f s ’ c o u nsel believe d, afte r consultation with his clients, that certa in information was privileg ed o r b eyond the scope of re le va nc y , h e sh ou ld have su

bmi tte d a motio n, rathe r t ha n r e fu se to h a ve his c lie nts execute the documents. This Court ag ree s with the district j u d ge in Mann , who opined that the exis tence of re levanc y or privileg e is not a unilatera l determinationUs

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 6 - fo r t he a tto rn e y

se e kin g the dis c ov e ry , nor fo r the a tto rn e y re pr e se nti ng the patie nt. Mann , su pra at 1 2 0 1
. I ti s t h e C o u rt ’s p ro v i n ce t o d ec i d e wh en a c o l o rab l e p ri v i l ege claim is asserte d — upon considera tion of an appr opriately -filed motion to quash or motion for protec tive order
. The c ourt found Appe llant eng ag ed in four months of unnece ssary , obstructive delay in discovery by ref using to provide medical r elea ses w i t h o ut pursuing g ood faith discussions with opposing
c ouns el or

ra isi ngthe pr ob le m w iththe c ourt purs ua nt t o th e F e de ra l Ru le s a nd the c ourt ’s c a se manag ement orde r. The c ourt said the existence o f relevancy or privileg e is not a unilatera l deter mination for the attorne y

seekingdiscovery , nor for the attorney repr esenting the patient, and Ap pe lla nt c ou ld h ave fi le d a

mot ion to q ua shor fo r p ro te c tiv e or de r. Th e or de r w e nt o n to im po se R u l e 3 7 s an c t i o n s a g a i n s tA p p e l l an to n l y. F . The dist r ic t c our t g r ant s t he unio ns’ jo int m ot ion for r ule 11 sa nc ti ons I n the orde r that imposed Rule 37 sanctions, t he dis trict court dism issed the s econd count of the amende d complaint and imposed Rule 11 sanctions ag ainst Appellant only . The district cour t did not state the form of the sanctions. The c ourt identified the f ollowing a s the two “most eg reg ious ple a din g inf

ir mit ie s” : (1 ) Na

min g Mr s. Us zak a s a pla int if f in a duty of fa ir re pr e se ntatio n cla im whe n s he is not a union member a

nd has no standingunder e x isting fe dera l law; and (2 ) Na

min g the I B T a s a

de fe nd ant. Th e district court off

ere d no analy sis of these issues nor a ny indication that it had considere d p l ai n t i ff s ’ a rgu m en t s fr o m b ri ef

i n g o r t h e s t at u s co n fe re n ce . T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i d n o t e t h at al t h o u ghUs

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

Th e c ourt

sa id t he ame nd e d c omp la int

e lim inate d f

ro m c ount 1 any

a lle g a tio ns a g a ins t 1 the I BT a nd any claims by

Mrs. Uszak. - 7 - the two def

iciencie s were cure d by

the filing of th e am en d ed complaint in J uly , the orig inal 1

c omp la int wa s fi le d thr e e months e arl ie r and the a me ndme nt wa s no t ma de un til a ft er de fenda nts fi le d mo tio ns to d ism iss and fo r s anc tio ns . The district cour

t identified sever al more r easons f or sanc tions, including that the complaint
was a lso broug ht ag ainst YRC, which was not the entity that employ ed Uszak. G . The dist r ic t c our t d ism iss e s M r s. Us z ak a nd t he IBT On J anuar y 11, 2007, the district court dismissed all of Mrs. Uszak’s c laims two months after pla int if fs mov e d f

or h er vo lu nta

ry dis mis sa l. On

Janu ary 12 , 2 00 7, the c ourt

dis mis se d th e c a se ag ainst the I BT immediate ly afte r Uszak moved for

voluntary dismiss al following rec eipt of answe rs to i nte rr og a tor ie s. H. App e lla nt offe r s sa nc ti on s e tt le m e nt On May 9, 2007, Appellant offere d Appellee s $7,500 to resolve the matter of sanctions but no settlement was r eac hed. I. The m ag ist r at e ju dge r ule s o n t he at to r ne y fe e appl ic at ion s On J une 6, 2007, under

an order of ref

err al from the district court, the MJ held an evidentiar y hear ing on the fee applications submitt ed by attorney s for Appellee s. The ne x t month the MJ issued a 28-pa g e MJR R recommending sanctions as summarized in the table above
. As noted, the re cord is no t c le ar a s to ho w the MJ ap po rt ion e d th e awa rd s o f t he sa nc tio ns be tw e e n th e tw o is su e s o f M rs . Us zak ’s 30 1/d fr

c la im a nd the namin g of

the I B T a s a

de fe nd ant.Us

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 8 - T h e M JRR

s tate d th a t a n y f e e s r e late d to “ th e n a mi n g o f Y RC Wo r ld w id e a s a Pl a inti f

f [s ic ]” would be conside red but ther e wa s no further discussion and no indication that Rule 11 fee s were assessed on this issue. J. The di strict

court gr ants summ ary judgm ent to YT and Local 407 On J une 18, 2007, the di strict court, as noted above, g rante d L ocal 407 and YT’s motions for summary judgme nt, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the pendant state c laims. This court aff irmed. K. The di strict

court adopts the MJRR I n J uly 2007 Appellant filed obje ctions to the MJ RR. One y ear later, the district court issued a two-pa rag raph or der statingthat it had revie wed de novo the MJRR and the is su es r ais ed in Ap pe lla nt’ s o bje c tio ns , a

nd it f ull y a g re e d w itha

nd a do pte d th e MJRR. III . BA SIS F OR

AP P ELLA TE J URISD IC TIO N The district cour

t exercised j u ri s d i ction under 28 U .S.C. § 1331 and section 301 of the L MRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Notice of appe al was timely filed under

Fe dera l Rule of Appellate Proc edure 4(a)
.

IV . A NA LY SIS A. Stand ards of review Th e Court

of Ap pe a ls r e vie ws the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s Rul e 11 and 37 de te rm inatio ns fo r a

bu se of discre tion. Ap os tol ic Pe nte c os tal Chu rc h v . Co lbe rt , 169 F.3d 409, 417 (6th Cir. 1999) (Rule 11); Nat’l Ho ck

ey L ea g u e v. Me tro. Hocke y Club, Inc. , 4 27 U. S. 6 39 , 6 42 (1 97 6) (R ule 37 ); Taylor v. Medtronics, Inc

. , 861 F.2d 980, 985 ( 6th Cir. 1988) (Rule 37).Us

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 9 - B. The law o n sa nc ti ons 1. Rule 11 “B y prese nting to the c ourt a plea ding . . . a n attorney

. . . cer tifies that to the best of the pe rs on ’s kn ow le dg e . . . for me d af te r an inq uir y re a so na ble un de r the c ir c ums tanc e s . . . . the c la ims
. . . are war

rante d by exis ting law

or b y a nonfr ivolous argument for e x tending , modifying, or
reve rsing ex i sting lawor for establishing ne w law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 11(b). I f, af ter notice and a
rea sonable opportunity

to respond, the district cour t finds a violation of the rule, it may impose an appropr iate sanc tion on the attorney responsible. Id. 11(c) (1). The sanction, if im posed on motion and wa rra nted for e ffe ctive dete rre nce, ma y be for rea sonable attorney

fee s and expenses re sulting direc tly from the violation. Id. The order for sanctions “must descr ibe the sanc tioned conduct a nd explain the basis for the sanc tion.” Id. 11(c) (6). Rule 11 sanctions may not be imposed for conduct related to disc overy that is subject to the provisions of, amongothers, Rule 37. Id. 11(d). 2. Rule 37 I f a mot ion to c omp e l di sc ov e ry is g ra nte d, the c ourt

mus t, a ft e r a ff

or din g an o pp or

tun ity to be hea rd, re quire the pa

rty whose c onduct n ec es s i t at ed the motion or the attorney advising such
c on du c t to pa

y the mov ant r e a so na

ble e xpe ns e s in c ur

re d in the mot ion , in c lud inga tto rn e y fe e s, unless the court finds that the m otion was filed without the m ovant’s first making a good faith effor t to o bta in t

he dis c ov e ry , the op po sin g pa rt y ’s ob je c tio n w a s ju sti fi e d, or

oth e r c ir c ums tanc e s w ou ld make the a

war d unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) (A). C. DiscussionUs

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 10 - 1. Rule 11 claims The partie s d o n o t d is p u te th a t a f te r n o ti f yin g Ap p e ll an t o f

th e ir inte n t t o s e e k

Ru le 11
sanc tio ns , th e de fe nd ants ine xplic a bly wa ite d o nly

e ig ht d ay s bef

or e fi lin g the sanc tio ns mot ion wi th the district court. A motion for Rule 11 sa nctions must be served under Rule 5 but “must not be filed or be presente d to the court if the challeng ed .
. . claim .
. . is withdrawn or a ppropriate ly

corr ecte d within 21 day s afte r service.” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 11(c) (2). As the rule and our case s interpre ting it make clea r, “sa nctions under Rule 11 a

re una vailable unless the motion for san ct i o n s i s serve d on the opposing party for the full twenty -one day ‘saf e harbor ’ period befor e it is filed wi t h o r presented to the court.” Ri dd

e r v . Ci ty of S pr ing fie ld , 109 F.3d 288, 297 (6th Cir. 1997)
. The d i s t ri ct court
ne v e r a d dr e s s e d th is p r o c e d u r a l f a il in g , d e s p it e Ap p e ll an t' s h a v in g f a ir ly r a is e d th e is s u e , and no basis exis ts f

or overlooking it. I rre spective of whether Appellant eng ag ed in sanc tionable conduc t by including a

rguably frivolous claims in the complaint, Rule 11 sanctions rema ined unavailable due to the defe ndants’ fa ilure to comply with the safe harb o r p ro vision, with which we re quire “ strict adher ence .” Id. Acc ording ly , we r ever se the district cour t's Rule 11 sa

nctions awa

rd. 2. Rule 37(

a) and Y T’s motion to compel Appellant say s he shoul d not have be en sanc tioned under Rule 37( a) be cause he wa s justified i ns u p p o rt i n g h i s cl i en t s ’ re fu s al t o s i gnm ed i ca l re l ea s es . He ci t es t h e p h y s i ci an -p at i en tp ri v i l ege under se ction 2317.02 of the Ohio Revised Code. Appellant downpla y s the rele vant subsection of the Code—which the district court cited on the first pag e of the order gra nting the motion t o compel
and sanc tio ns —th a t r e a ds :Us

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 11 -

The testimonial privileg e established under this divi sion does not apply , and
a ph y sic ian or de nti st may te sti fy or may be c omp e lle d to te sti fy

. . . ( a ) I n a ny c ivi l action, in ac corda

nce w ith the discovery provisions of the Rules of Civil P roce dure in connec tion with a civil action, or in connec tion with a claim under Chapter 4123. of the Revised Code, .
. . (iii) I f a medical claim, dental claim, chir oprac tic claim, or optometric cla im, as defined in section 2305.113 of the Re vised Code, an a ction for wrong ful death, any other ty pe of civil ac tion, or a cla im under Chapter 4123. of the Re vis e d Co de is f

ile d b y the patie nt.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2317.02(B )(1) (West 2004 & Supp. 2009). As the dist rict cour t said in the order g rantingYT’s motion to compel and sanc tions, plai n t iffs put their own menta l and phy sical conditions at issue. And as the c ourt observe d later in the same orde r, Appe llant eng ag ed in four
mon ths of de lay by re fu sin g to p ro vid e me dic a l r e le a se s w ith out p u r s u i n g g oo d f a ithdis c us sio ns wi th opposing c ounsel or ra ising the pr oblem with the cour t. We find nothing to fault in the district court’s c onclusion that if Appellant believe d that cer tain information was pr ivilege d or beyond the
sc op e of re le va nc y , h e sh ou ld have su

bmi tte d a mot ion rathe r tha n r e fu se to h a ve his c lie nts e xec ute the do c ume nts
. 5. Supplemental Fe es Appellant cha lleng es the a war ding of

supplemental attorne y s’ fe es for work done on sanctions motions and confe renc es af ter a n unsucce ssful settlement confe renc e in which he of fer ed $7 ,5 00 to A

pp e lle e s.Us

za k e t al . v . Yellow Tran sp or tat ion , I nc ., e t al

. No. 08-4026

- 12 - Be cause we h av e fo u n d no abuse of discretion in the district cour t’s awa rding of Rule 37 sanctions to YT, and beca use Appellant did not provide us with any information as to how much he offe red spe cifica lly

to YT, the supplemental f ees of $2,014.00 alre ady

permitted t o YT by

the district court unde r Rule 37 ar e allowe d. I t is not clea

r from the re cord howmuch of the f inal $10,000 awa

rded on Rule 11 sa

nctions
re pr e se nte d s up ple me nta l f e e s b ut t his qu e sti on

is now moo t as we have re ve rs e d the e nti re amou nt. V. CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, the district c ourt’s aw ard of Rule 37 sanctions of $3,414.50, which included $2,014.00 in supplemental fee s, is a ffirme d, and the awa rd of Rule 11 sanc tions of $10,000 is rever sed.