Reichel Foods, Inc. v. Proseal America, Inc.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02604
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Reichel Foods v. Proseal America, Judge Menendez denied Proseal UK’s request for discovery-related expenses after Reichel’s motion to compel was denied.
Reichel Foods, Inc. and Proseal UK. Proseal UK did not receive reimbursement for the expenses and attorney’s fees it incurred responding to Reichel’s denied motion to compel.
What happened
In Reichel Foods, Inc. v. Proseal America, Inc., Reichel Foods asked the court to compel discovery from Proseal UK. The court had denied that motion in full.
Proseal UK then requested reimbursement for its expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, under a rule governing unsuccessful motions to compel. Reichel argued that its motion was reasonably justified, pointing to uncertainty about the case’s scope and discovery schedule.
The court found that awarding expenses would be unfair because the case’s procedural history had caused confusion about whether discovery had closed, and there was no indication that Reichel acted in bad faith. Judge Menendez denied Proseal UK’s request for expenses and attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Reichel Foods, Inc. v. Proseal America, Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-02604
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 15, 2021
Background
Reichel Foods, Inc. filed a motion to compel discovery from Defendant Proseal UK. After a hearing on June 23, 2021, the court denied Reichel’s motion in its entirety and later issued a written order memorializing that decision. Proseal UK requested reimbursement for the expenses it incurred responding to the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B).
Legal standard
When a court denies a motion to compel, Rule 37 generally requires the moving party, the attorney who filed the motion, or both to pay the opposing party’s reasonable expenses. The court may not award expenses, however, if the motion was substantially justified or if other circumstances would make an award unjust. A motion is substantially justified when it has a reasonable basis in both law and fact. Whether an award would be unjust depends on the circumstances and is left to the court’s discretion.
Parties’ positions
Reichel argued that its motion to compel was substantially justified. It asked the court to reconsider its conclusion that the discovery requests were directed largely at issues relevant only to a proposed Third Amended Complaint. Reichel also pointed to the unusual procedural history of the case.
Court’s analysis
The court did not decide whether Reichel had shown that its motion was substantially justified. Instead, it concluded that an award of expenses would be unjust. When Reichel served the discovery requests, objections to the denial of leave to file the proposed Third Amended Complaint were pending. The court found that this created uncertainty about whether the litigation’s scope would expand substantially. The court also found that the case’s procedural history indicated that Reichel’s counsel was confused about whether, and to what extent, discovery had closed. Although the court said Reichel would have been better served by asking for clarification before filing the motion to compel, there was no indication that Reichel acted in bad faith.
Disposition
The court denied Proseal UK’s request for expenses, including attorney’s fees, under Rule 37(a)(5)(B). The opinion also notes that Reichel had filed an earlier motion to compel, but Proseal UK did not seek fees for that motion; the court found that earlier motion substantially justified.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.