Opinion ID: 2982322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Renewed Motion for Sanctions

Text: Thurmond also challenges the district court’s denial of his renewed motion for sanctions, in the form of attorney’s fees, for defendants’ discovery abuses. Thurmond contends the district - 14 - Case No. 13-1389, Thurmond v. Wayne County Sheriff Department, et al. court conflated and misapplied the applicable standards of review when it addressed the motion for sanctions in conjunction with the motion for relief from judgment. We review for abuse of discretion. See Universal Health Group v. Allstate Ins. Co., 703 F.3d 953, 955-56 (6th Cir. 2013); Bentkowski v. Scene Magazine, 637 F.3d 689, 696 (6th Cir. 2011). Under this standard, we will reverse only if firmly convinced that a mistake affecting substantial rights has been made. Dortch v. Fowler, 583 F.3d 396, 400 (6th Cir. 2009). Yes, the district court ruled on the two motions at the same time and found it convenient to consolidate its analysis of the two motions in the same opinion. R. 144, Order, Page ID # 2950. It was sensible to do so. Recall the chronology. When the denial of Thurmond’s motion for default judgment (based on discovery abuses) was affirmed on appeal, the panel expressly noted that the affirmance was without prejudice to Thurmond’s right to pursue other sanctions on remand. Thurmond, 447 F. App’x at 647. Yet, Thurmond did not file his renewed motion for sanctions until June 14, 2012, one year after the appellate ruling, six months after the dispositive motion cut-off set by the district court on remand, and one day prior to the scheduled hearing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The district court refrained from considering the motion for sanctions at the June 15 hearing and instead deferred consideration until defendants had the opportunity to respond. Hence, the motion for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees was not addressed until months after the court had already awarded summary judgment to defendants on all outstanding claims. In granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the court had already rejected many of Thurmond’s discovery-abuse arguments for a second or third time. And by the time the court took up the renewed motion for sanctions, Thurmond had also filed his motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) based on substantially similar - 15 - Case No. 13-1389, Thurmond v. Wayne County Sheriff Department, et al. grounds. It was therefore sensible for the court to take up the motions together and, in doing so, the court correctly acknowledged the respective standards of review, each motion being committed to its discretion, but only the motion for Rule 60(b)(3) requiring clear and convincing evidence. R. 144, Order at 4-6, Page ID # 2953-55. As the court proceeded to analyze each of the most serious instances of alleged misconduct and failed to find, in the exercise of its discretion, that any of them justified relief from judgment, it is unsurprising that the court also found, in the exercise of its discretion, that none of the misconduct warranted post-judgment imposition of sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees. Nor has Thurmond persuaded us that the district court, despite the imprecision of its explanation, abused its discretion in any way. Considering the district court’s greater familiarity with the lawyers and their ongoing relations, its judgment in managing discoveryrelated obligations is entitled to great deference. Just as Thurmond has failed to show that any alleged misconduct by defendants’ counsel adversely affected the fairness of the litigation, he has also failed to firmly convince us the district court, by refusing to award him attorney’s fees, made an error of judgment that affected his substantial rights. Although defendants’ counsel’s conduct may have made discovery more difficult, it is evident for the reasons set forth above that Thurmond ultimately had a fair opportunity to substantiate his claims.