Opinion ID: 784216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants' Cross-Appeal for Sanctions

Text: 25 In their cross-appeal, the defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion when it denied their motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel. Our review of the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for sanctions is deferential, and we will disturb the denial only if we conclude the court abused its discretion. Smith v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 165 F.3d 1142, 1144 (7th Cir.1999). 26 In denying the defendants' motion, the district court reasoned that plaintiffs' counsel had already been sanctioned when the court precluded her from deposing two witnesses, and noted that [while the plaintiffs'] other motions to strike may be meritless, they do not warrant sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The defendants contend, however, that the plaintiffs' attorney should have been sanctioned by the court for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings by filing two utterly frivolous motions to strike. Although we find many of plaintiffs' counsel's actions in this case to be less than professional, the defendants have not presented us with sufficient evidence from which we can conclude that the district court abused its discretion in declining to impose sanctions on her, and we therefore decline to disturb its ruling.