Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company
Lisa Rouse, Juston Rouse, Jenna Drouin, and Nicholas Drouin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller Construction Products Inc.
- John Docherty
- 0:22-cv-02173
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company, Magistrate Judge Docherty ordered Defendants to pay Plaintiffs $65,759.45 in attorneys' fees and costs after finding their corporate deposition witness was inadequately prepared.
Parties in class action litigation who face disputes over corporate deposition preparation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and their attorneys who may face fee-shifting awards when a court finds a corporate witness was inadequately prepared for such a deposition.
What happened
In Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller Construction Products Inc., a class action lawsuit pending in federal court in Minnesota, the plaintiffs moved to recover attorneys' fees and costs after a previous court order found that defendant H.B. Fuller Company ('HBF Co.') failed to properly prepare its corporate representative, Cheryl Reinitz, for a required deposition in which a company must send a knowledgeable spokesperson to answer questions on the company's behalf (known as a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition). The court had already ordered HBF Co. to produce a second, adequately prepared representative, and this order addressed how much HBF Co. must pay for the harm caused by its initial failure.
Plaintiffs' attorneys requested fees and costs in three categories: (1) about $69,305 for the original failed deposition of Ms. Reinitz on April 10, 2025; (2) about $37,259 for filing and arguing the motion to compel a proper deponent; and (3) about $34,858 for the second deposition of Traci Jensen on July 17, 2025. HBF Co. argued that its approach to preparing the witness was legally reasonable, that Plaintiffs had originally said they were not seeking sanctions, and that some of the requested fees were duplicative or would have been incurred anyway. The court agreed with some of HBF Co.'s objections and reduced the amounts in each category.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty granted the fee requests in part and denied them in part. The court denied all fees for the original April 10 deposition, reasoning that Plaintiffs would have spent that money even if the witness had been properly prepared. The court awarded $35,387.50 for the motion-to-compel work, cutting out travel-related time that would have been spent regardless. The court awarded $30,371.95 for the second deposition, reducing some billing entries by half where the work overlapped with other ongoing litigation tasks. The total awarded to Plaintiffs is $65,759.45.
The detailed version
- Rouse v. H.B. Fuller Company · No. 0:22-cv-02173
- John F. Docherty
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
This is a class action lawsuit in the District of Minnesota against H.B. Fuller Company ("HBF Co.") and H.B. Fuller Construction Products Inc. The present order addresses a fee petition following an earlier June 25, 2025 order in which the court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel HBF Co. to produce an adequately prepared corporate representative for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition — a procedural device under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a company to designate one or more spokespersons to testify on its behalf about topics the opposing party identifies in advance. The June 25 order found that HBF Co.'s witness, Cheryl Reinitz, was not adequately prepared and that neither she nor counsel had taken the steps legally required to familiarize her with the relevant topics. The court then ordered a second deposition and directed the parties to brief the issue of fees and costs.
Plaintiffs' Counsel and Billing Rates
Plaintiffs are represented by two firms: Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP ("Vorys") of Cincinnati, Ohio, serving as lead counsel, and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP ("LGN") of Minneapolis, Minnesota, serving as local counsel. Vorys attorneys David Hine (partner, $695/hour), Petra Bergman (associate, $495/hour), and Michael Soder (associate, $430/hour) performed most of the work. LGN attorneys David Asp (partner, $625/hour) and David Hahn (associate, $375/hour) also billed time. HBF Co. did not challenge the hourly rates themselves, so the court accepted them as reasonable.
Legal Standards Applied
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), which provides that when a motion to compel is granted, the court must require the party whose conduct made the motion necessary — or the attorney advising that conduct — to pay the moving party's reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, unless: (i) the moving party did not first attempt in good faith to obtain discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's position was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award unjust. The court also noted Rule 37(b)(2)(C), covering fee awards when a party disobeys a court order, and the court's inherent authority to award fees against a party that has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons (citing United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 403 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 2005), and Lamb Engineering & Construction Co. v. Nebraska Public Power District, 103 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1997)).
The court also acknowledged HBF Co.'s argument that Plaintiffs had initially stated they were not seeking sanctions when they filed the motion to compel, and that HBF Co.'s approach to preparing its witness was supported by legal authority and reflected a reasonable effort to navigate the complexities of the case. The court described these as "well-taken arguments" and factored them into the overall fee assessment.
Category 1: April 10, 2025 Deposition of Cheryl Reinitz — Denied
Plaintiffs requested $69,305.07 for fees and costs related to the original deposition of Ms. Reinitz, broken down as approximately $60,226 in attorneys' fees (94.80 hours for Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman), $2,396.52 in travel expenses, and $6,682.55 in court reporter and videographer fees.
The court denied this entire category. Its reasoning: Plaintiffs would have incurred these costs even if HBF Co. had properly prepared Ms. Reinitz. The court held it would only award fees and costs beyond what Plaintiffs would have spent in the normal course — that is, costs caused by HBF Co.'s failure, not costs that would have been incurred regardless.
Category 2: Motion to Compel — Granted in Part ($35,387.50)
Plaintiffs requested $37,258.62 total for drafting the motion to compel and associated briefing, travel, and participation in the May 16, 2025 Case Management Conference and hearing. This figure included one-third of total travel costs (because two other issues were also addressed at the same hearing).
HBF Co. argued that Plaintiffs' counsel would have traveled to St. Paul for the Case Management Conference regardless of the motion to compel. The court agreed and declined to award any travel-related fees or costs for the trip.
The court awarded: - $5,004.00 for Mr. Hine's preparation time on May 15 - $4,517.50 for Mr. Hine's participation time on May 16 - $1,237.50 for Ms. Bergman's work on May 15 - $1,930.50 for Ms. Bergman's work on May 16 - $22,699.00 for 44.9 hours spent by Mr. Hine and Mr. Soder drafting the motion briefing
Total awarded for the motion to compel: $35,387.50
Category 3: July 17, 2025 Deposition of Traci Jensen — Granted in Part ($30,371.95)
Plaintiffs requested $34,857.50 for the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition that the court had ordered HBF Co. to provide, including $30,837.50 in attorneys' fees (50.50 hours split between Mr. Hine and Ms. Bergman) and $4,020.45 in transcription and recording costs.
The court awarded the full $4,020.45 in transcription and recording costs, finding these would not have been incurred if HBF Co. had properly prepared its original witness.
For attorneys' fees, the court granted the request in part. HBF Co. argued that preparation work was unnecessarily duplicative of prior work done for earlier depositions. The court acknowledged some duplication was possible but found it reasonable for counsel to spend time refamiliarizing themselves with the issues after a three-month gap between depositions. However, the court found that some billing entries commingled work directly tied to the court-ordered deposition with work that would have been done anyway — for example, reviewing documents related to HBF Co.'s motion to deny class certification (which the court had already denied as premature in an August 15, 2025 order). Because such work would also be relevant to a future class certification motion, the court reduced those commingled entries by one half. After applying those reductions, the court found $26,351.50 in compensable attorneys' fees for the second deposition.
Total awarded for the second deposition: $30,371.95
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Requests for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. Nos. 597 and 623). Defendants are ordered to pay: 1. $35,387.50 for fees and costs associated with the Motion to Compel. 2. $30,371.95 for fees and costs associated with HBF Co.'s second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
Grand total awarded: $65,759.45
All fees for the original April 10, 2025 deposition were denied.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.