UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

George Tsiatsios

v. Civil No. 07-cv-00003-JL

 Opinion No. 2008 DNH 117 

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

O R D E R

 In December of 2006, the plaintiff, George Tsiatsios, sued

the defendant, Anheuser Busch, Inc., in New Hampshire state court

alleging various claims under New Hampshire common law. The

defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking its

diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and attempted to

engage Tsiatsios in discovery. After repeated discovery

violations by Tsiatsios (and the defendant’s concomitant attempts

to compel Tsiatsios’s compliance with the discovery rules), the

defendant moved the court to dismiss the complaint. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37 and 41. The court denied the motion, but ordered

Tsiatsios to pay the defendant’s litigation costs and fees

relating to the defendant’s refusal to participate in discovery. 

Before the court for its review and approval is the defendant’s

accounting of the relevant costs and fees. Neither Tsiatsios nor

his attorney has objected to the defendant’s accounting. 

Case 1:07-cv-00003-JL Document 34 Filed 06/13/08 Page 1 of 6
1

 The defendant’s motion to compel was first filed on May

21, 2007. However, due to a filing error, the defendant did not

comply with all filing requirements until May 30, 2007. For

purposes of this motion, the court deems the motion filed as of

the earlier date.

2

I. BACKGROUND

The relevant facts, as provided by the defendant and

undisputed by Tsiatsios, are as follows:

On March 6, 2007, the parties to this

litigation filed a joint discovery plan. 

That discovery plan set May 1, 2007 as the

deadline for initial disclosures and November

1, 2007 as the deadline for the completion of

all discovery. On May 1, 2007 Anheuser-Busch

served its initial disclosures on Plaintiff,

as required, but received no initial

disclosures in return. On May 22, 2007,

Anheuser-Busch served [its first discovery

request] on Plaintiff. Pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26 and 34, Plaintiff’s responses were

due on June 25, 2007. 

On May 30, 2007, after repeatedly requesting

the overdue initial disclosures from

Plaintiff’s counsel without success,

Anheuser-Busch filed a Motion to Compel with

this Court.1 Ten days later, and over a

month after they were due, Plaintiff’s

counsel provided the disclosures and

simultaneously opposed the Motion to Compel

on those grounds.

On August 8, 2007, again after several

unsuccessful attempts to obtain Plaintiff’s

responses to Anheuser-Busch’s discovery

requests, Anheuser-Busch filed another Motion

to Compel with the Court. The Court granted

the unopposed Motion on September 5, 2007. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1, Plaintiff then

Case 1:07-cv-00003-JL Document 34 Filed 06/13/08 Page 2 of 6
2

 As part of its motion to dismiss, the defendant asked the

court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs. In the

alternative, the defendant asked the court to extend the

discovery deadline to allow for time to depose Tsiatsios. 

3

had ten days to comply with the Court’s

order. 

On October 16, 2007 Anheuser-Busch noticed,

via e-mail and US mail, the Plaintiff’s

deposition, for October 25, 2007. The

following morning, Plaintiff’s counsel sent

an email to counsel for Anheuser-Busch,

confirming that the proposed date and time

were agreeable to him. In response,

Anheuser-Busch repeated its needs for the

Court-ordered document request responses no

later than Monday October 22, 2007 so that it

could properly prepare for the deposition. 

(Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Dismiss 1-2). On October 24,

2007, two days after the proposed deadline and still without a

response to its discovery requests, the defendant moved the court

to dismiss the complaint,2 which the court conditionally granted. 

The court ordered Tsiatsios to respond to the discovery requests

and make himself available to be deposed, specifying the

potential penalty for failure to comply as dismissal of the

complaint. 

After several weeks passed and Tsiatsios still had not

complied with the court’s order, the court conducted a hearing to

address the defendant’s motion to dismiss. In the order that

resulted from that hearing, issued on March 5, 2008, the court

Case 1:07-cv-00003-JL Document 34 Filed 06/13/08 Page 3 of 6
3

 The court ordered the defendant to recalculate its

request for attorney’s fees using the hourly billing rate of

attorneys at the Ransmeier & Spellman law firm in Concord--which

also represents the defendant in this action. See Ackerly

Commc’ns of Mass., Inc. v. Somerville, 901 F.2d 170, 172 (1st

Cir. 1990) (a reasonable rate for out-of-town counsel “depends on

prevailing rates in the community for comparably qualified

attorneys”). 

4

“very reluctantly” denied the defendant’s motion without

prejudice, but ordered that Tsiatsios pay the defendant’s

litigation costs from May 21, 2007 (the date the first motion to

compel was filed) through the date of the order.

In its initial application for fees, the defendant utilized

the hourly rates of attorneys at the Boston law firm of Foley

Hoag, LLP and requested a total of $8,399.50. Pursuant to a

subsequent order of the court,3 the defendant amended its fee

request to $4,860.00, reflecting the prevailing hourly rates of

local counsel in New Hampshire. Tsiatsios has not disputed

either request. 

II. ANALYSIS

The court employs the familiar lodestar method to calculate

a reasonable award of attorney’s fees and costs. See Tenn. Gas

Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of Land, 32 F.3d 632, 634 (1st Cir.

1994). Under that method, the court calculates the number of

hours reasonably expended on the relevant tasks and multiplies

Case 1:07-cv-00003-JL Document 34 Filed 06/13/08 Page 4 of 6
5

that figure by a reasonable hourly rate. See Gay Officers Action

League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 295 (1st Cir. 2001). As

requested by the defendant in its amended application for fees,

and undisputed by Tsiatsios, the court adopts the hourly billing

rate for a partner in connection with this case at $225 per hour,

and the billing rate for an associate at $175 per hour. The

court similarly approves as reasonable the defendant’s accounting

of the number of hours expended by its attorneys on the relevant

tasks--specifically, 22.9 hours divided between three attorneys

of varying experience and expertise. 

III. CONCLUSION

The court approves the defendant’s accounting of its

litigation fees and costs incurred as a result of Tsiatsios’s

failure to participate in discovery in violation of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, and several

specific orders. Tsiatsios is thereby ordered to make payment to

the defendant in the amount of $4,860.00 within 30 days of this

order. 

Case 1:07-cv-00003-JL Document 34 Filed 06/13/08 Page 5 of 6
6

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 13, 2008

cc: Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Arthur G. Telegen, Esq.

Lawrence S. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00003-JL Document 34 Filed 06/13/08 Page 6 of 6