Fredin v. Middlecamp

Background

The order addresses objections in two closely related cases brought by Brock Fredin. Fredin had filed motions seeking discovery and sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. He accused the defendants of improperly using and reporting Internet usernames contained in discovery responses, allegedly in violation of an October 15, 2019 protective order.

The protective order limited the disclosure and use of information produced in discovery only when the information had been expressly designated as confidential. The defendants submitted sworn statements that Fredin had not designated any discovery materials—including his Internet usernames—as confidential. Magistrate Judge Bowbeer therefore found that the defendants could not have violated the protective order in the way Fredin alleged and found his sanctions motions frivolous.

Before ruling on the defendants’ request for at least $4,000 in sanctions, the magistrate judge gave Fredin an opportunity to explain why he should not pay the defendants’ reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees. Fredin submitted an ex parte declaration and exhibits for the court’s private review. The materials included portions of tax returns, text messages, a credit report, employment information, DNA-match information, Twitter posts, and student-loan debt information.

Objections and analysis

Fredin argued that sanctions were improper because he acted in good faith. He also argued that the award was excessive and should be reduced to $315 or $320, and that he should not have to re-file his declaration because of privacy concerns, including information covered by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s nondispositive orders under a highly deferential standard. It could set aside the orders only if they were clearly mistaken or contrary to law.

Under Rule 37(a)(5)(B), when a court denies a motion to compel discovery, it generally must require the person who filed the motion to pay the opposing party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, unless the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances would make an award unjust. The district court found no error in the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Fredin’s motion was not substantially justified. Fredin acknowledged that he had failed to mark the documents confidential. The court also agreed that his financial circumstances and self-represented status did not prevent a monetary sanction.

The court upheld the amount of the award. Although the defendants had sought at least $4,000, the magistrate judge awarded $1,260, calculated as three hours of attorney time at $420 per hour. The district court found that Fredin had not shown that this calculation was erroneous.

The court also upheld the requirement that Fredin re-file his declaration and exhibits. It noted that he could seek to file them under seal under Local Rule 5.6, but they had to be accessible to counsel of record. Fredin could redact information covered by Rule 5.2 and other applicable confidentiality requirements. The court concluded that the re-filing requirement did not violate Rule 5.2.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Fredin’s objections and affirmed the May 18, 2020 orders in both cases. The order requires Fredin to pay defendants’ attorney K. Jon Breyer $1,260 as a Rule 37(a)(5)(B) sanction within 30 days. It also requires Fredin to re-file the sealed declaration and attached exhibits within seven days in compliance with Local Rule 5.6 and in a manner accessible at least to counsel of record.