Federal Civil Practice

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering $413 million default judgment against defendants as sanction for various discovery infractions in RICO action by plaintiffs alleging that defendants-controlling shareholders in corporation caused corporation to pay out millions of dollars to defendants for services never performed. Entry of default judgment was not abuse of discretion, where record supported Dist. Ct. finding that: (1) defendants made at best minimal efforts to produce certain bank records/computer hard drive that had been subject to prior production orders; and (2) defendants failed to make one defendant available for his deposition. Fact that Magistrate Judge had imposed lesser sanction did not require different result. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in using four-year-old offer to purchase total shares of subject corporation when calculating damages, where defendant had withheld certain documents that could have provided more accurate calculation of corporation’s worth.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendant lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff on charge of disorderly conduct, arising out of dispute between plaintiff-deer hunter and defendant game warden outside of deer registration post. Dist. Ct. could not make credibility determination when finding that arguable probable cause existed based on its finding that plaintiff suddenly shouted at defendant and brushed up against him, since plaintiff stated that he spoke to defendant in non-confrontational way and accidentally brushed up against him. Moreover, plaintiff’s allegation that he was merely attempting to disengage from defendant supported his claim that defendant lacked probable cause to arrest him on disorderly conduct charge.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff’s motion seeking preliminary injunction on enforcement of defendant’s policy requiring small groups to obtain permit to gather on public property managed by defendant. Record showed likelihood of plaintiff prevailing on his claim that said policy violated his First Amendment rights where: (1) permit requirement for small groups was not narrowly tailored as least restrictive means to further govt. interest since defendant allowed larger, non-protesting groups to gather without need for permit; (2) defendant’s insistence that smaller groups obtain permit where they had invited public to attend gathering was likely too restrictive when invitation did not produce larger crowd; and (3) requirement of permit gave defendant’s employees too much unbridled discretion in determining whether permit would be issued. Fact that defendant had never denied permit application did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. erred in directing defendant to produce 13 of its employees located in Germany for depositions to take place in New York City as sanction for various discovery abuses. Dist. Ct. could not use instant sanction to require defendant’s U.S. citizen employees in Germany to appear before Dist. Ct. to take deposition, where said citizens could have been deposed in Amsterdam, where parties had originally agreed to take their depositions. Moreover, defendant’s foreign-born employees in Germany could not otherwise be forced to come to U.S. to be deposed. Ct. further observed that defendant’s employees should not be punished for “sins” of defendant by requiring that they come to inconvenient place to take deposition, rather than convenient place where parties had agreed to take their depositions. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. erred in denying motion to dismiss by one defendant-prosecutor, where said defendant asserted that he was entitled to absolute immunity in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that said defendant and another prosecutor deprived plaintiff of liberty under due process clause and committed tort of malicious prosecution by coercing witnesses to provide testimony that defendants and said witnesses knew to be false, which resulted in plaintiff’s wrongful conviction on two murder charges and his imprisonment for 17 years until his acquittal on retrial. Said defendant was entitled to absolute immunity, where his alleged procurement of false testimony took place in midst of plaintiff’s second trial, and thus said defendant was acting in his prosecutorial, as opposed to investigative role. Dist. Ct. did not err, though, in finding that other defendant-prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity, where complaint indicated that said defendant was acting in his investigative role when he allegedly fabricated evidence prior to plaintiff’s prosecution, and then introduced fabricated evidence at plaintiff’s first trial. (Partial dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing defendant in instant class action to reimburse itself from $75 million settlement fund that defendant had previously funded for “post settlement claims” from class members that were allowed by terms of settlement to sue defendant. Terms of settlement did not restrict defendant’s ability to settle class members’ claims, and Ct. rejected class counsel’s contention that defendant was required to reimburse settlement for money spent on those claims that could have been defeated by asserting statute of limitations defense or were otherwise without merit. Moreover, while terms of settlement precluded defendant from settling subsequent class actions filed by instant class members, record showed that all of large quantity of claims settled by defendant had been filed by individual claimants.

Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendants-Wisc. Governor and other state officials waived any qualified immunity defense to instant action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff’s privacy rights by failing to appoint plaintiff as interim Register of Deeds of Marinette County upon learning of existence of plaintiff’s bankruptcy petition and then announcing that plaintiff was not appointed because defendant Governor had learned of said bankruptcy. No waiver occurred, even though defendants did not raise qualified immunity defense while original complaint was in force, since plaintiff’s amended complaint opened door for defendants to raise new and previously unmentioned affirmative defenses. Moreover, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s privacy claims, where defendants merely publicized already published fact that plaintiff had filed bankruptcy petition. Moreover, record showed that plaintiff had signed waiver authorizing disclosure of private information to Wisc. Dep’t of Justice in exchange for being considered for appointment she sought.

Dist. Ct. did not err in awarding plaintiff only $123,000 out of requested $675,000 in attorney fees associated with prosecution of section 1983 action that plaintiff filed against various police officers and City of Chicago arising out of plaintiff’s arrest on assault and battery charges. Record showed that plaintiff did not prevail on 38 out of 39 claims and was awarded only $1 in nominal damages and $3,000 in punitive damages against only one defendant-officer. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly reduce said fee request by 80% based on limited success of lawsuit, where plaintiff’s counsel had failed to keep records that would distinguish between successful and unsuccessful claims. Moreover, Ct. rejected plaintiff’s request to make defendant-City liable for said fees, where City was completely exonerated in said lawsuit, and where City’s only substantive obligation was to indemnify police officer for instant nominal award, which would not otherwise trigger any obligation to pay attorney fees under section 1988. Also, plaintiff was properly required to pay City’s costs to defend itself in instant lawsuit under Rule 54(d)(1), where City had prevailed against plaintiff.

Dist. Ct. erred in certifying class of property owners in instant lawsuit alleging that defendants-owners of oil refinery had allowed benzene and other contaminants to leak into groundwater under class members’ homes. Record was unclear as to whether plaintiffs would be able to identify any common issues where: (1) class members obtained their drinking water from other non-contaminated source; and (2) any reduction in property values of members’ homes might be unrelated to any alleged contamination. Moreover, Dist. Ct. erred in failing to conduct hearing as to whether plaintiffs could have presented common evidence and single methodology to prove both injury and damages prior to ruling on certification motion.