Abdou v. Walker
- Rearden
- 1:19-cv-01824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Abdou v. Walker, Judge Rearden ordered Plaintiff to document expenses allegedly caused by a public filing that may have violated a protective order.
Plaintiff Shareef Abdou and Defendant Joseph C. Bird, concerning Plaintiff’s request for expenses related to Bird’s public filing.
What happened
In Abdou v. Walker, the court addressed a dispute over Defendant Joseph C. Bird’s public filing of a summary-judgment motion. A protective order required filings containing confidential material to be filed under seal, and Plaintiff had reminded Bird of that requirement. After the filing, Bird moved to seal the motion, and Plaintiff claimed the public filing violated the protective order and requested fees and other expenses.
The court explained that a rule governing violations of discovery orders can require the violating party to pay reasonable expenses caused by the violation, unless the violation was substantially justified or payment would be unfair. But the court said it was not clear whether Plaintiff had incurred expenses because of Bird’s public filing.
Judge Rearden did not award fees at this stage. Instead, the court ordered Plaintiff to file an affidavit and supporting materials identifying reasonable expenses by March 10, 2023; allowed Bird to object by March 17; and required any reply by March 22.
The detailed version
- Abdou v. Walker · No. 1:19-cv-01824
- Rearden
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
A protective order entered on November 14, 2019, required parties to file under seal any motion containing material designated as confidential, even if the filing party believed the designation was improper. Plaintiff reminded Defendant Joseph C. Bird—an attorney proceeding without a lawyer—that his summary-judgment motion had to be filed under seal to the extent it referred to or discussed confidential materials.
On January 20, 2023, Christopher Skoczen, attorney for Defendants Lori Ann Walker, Mahany & Ertl, LLC, and Mahany Law, filed a summary-judgment motion on the public docket on Bird’s behalf. After Plaintiff objected, Bird moved to seal the motion on January 23. Plaintiff argued that the public filing violated the protective order and requested costs, fees, expenses, and attorney’s fees.
Court’s Analysis
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C), which requires a court, after a violation of a discovery order, to order the disobedient party to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the violation, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award unjust. The court also noted that any award must be for expenses incurred because of the disobedience.
The court found that it was unclear whether Plaintiff had incurred any expense because of Bird’s public filing. Plaintiff’s request for fees appeared in a letter supporting Bird’s motion to seal, and that letter would have been filed regardless of the public filing.
Order
The court ordered Plaintiff to file and serve, by March 10, 2023, an affidavit and supporting materials identifying reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the public filing of Bird’s summary-judgment motion. The court allowed Bird to file and serve objections by March 17, 2023, and required any reply by March 22, 2023.
The order did not award fees or expenses, decide the summary-judgment motion, or make a final determination that the protective order had been violated. It instead directed the parties to provide information and objections relevant to Plaintiff’s request for expenses.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.