# Korff v. Continental Tire the Americas, LLC

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 30, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062492

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** May 30, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062492

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JUSTIN KORFF, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-2905-SMY
)
CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, )
LLC, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Justin Korff filed the instant lawsuit against his former employer Continental Tire
The Americas LLC (“Continental”) alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”) and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990
(“ADA”). This case is now before the Court for consideration of Continental’s Motion for
Sanctions (Doc. 27), which Korff opposes (Doc. 31).
On September 27, 2024, Continental noticed Korff’s deposition for October 23, 2024 at
10:00 a.m. at the Hilton DoubleTree in Mount Vernon, Illinois. Korff was arrested on October 23,
2024, around 7:00 a.m. for allegedly violating a protective order. He was incarcerated at the
Franklin County jail in Benton, Illinois from the morning of October 23, 2024 until the morning
of October 24, 2024. Korff did not attend his scheduled deposition due to his incarceration. Korff
also failed to communicate with his attorney for a period following his incarceration. Korff asserts
that he did not have access to his cellphone and was unable to access his email during that time.
He maintains that he intends to attend his deposition and prosecute this case.
Continental contends Korff should pay the costs and fees incurred for his deposition in the
amount of $2,186.47 and attorneys’ fees associated with bringing the instant motion. It also seeks
the dismissal of Korff’s case with prejudice as a sanction.
A case may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when
the Court finds “willfulness, bad faith or fault on the part of the defaulting party.” Brown v.
Columbia Sussex Corp., 664 F.3d 182, 190 (7th Cir. 2011). However, the sanction of dismissal
must be “proportionate to the circumstances.” Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2009)
(Sanction of dismissal was proper when plaintiff, who had previously given incomplete answers
to the interrogatories and ignored requests for production of documents, walked out of her
deposition without answering any questions).
Here, Korff was unable to attend his deposition due to his incarceration — his absence was
not willful or in bad faith. As such, the draconian sanction of dismissal or requiring Korff to pay
deposition costs are not warranted. Korff has indicated that he will make himself available to sit
for his deposition and intends to proceed with this case. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 30, 2025 Ain MU Coole
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11062492. Public record. Not legal advice.