Mueller

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

NICHOLAS MUELLER et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 24-cv-2321-DWD

)

CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, IL et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute submitted by Plaintiffs Nicholas

Mueller (“Nicholas”) and Shonte Mueller (“Shonte”) pursuant to the discovery dispute

procedures in the Court’s Case management Order. (Doc. 13). The Report (attached

hereto as Exhibit A) details ongoing discovery abuses by Defendants City of East St. Louis

(“The City”) and Robert Betts (“Betts”) (collectively “Defendants”) who are represented

by attorneys Alvin C. Paulson and Grey R. Chatham, Jr. This is the second time Plaintiffs

have been forced to seek Court intervention due to Defendants’ failure to comply with

discovery requests.

Also pending is Plaintiffs’ previously filed motion for Attorney’s fees (Doc. 26)

related to Defendants’ earlier discovery violations. Plaintiffs have now supplemented

that motion with a request for Attorney’s fees related to the instant discovery dispute.

(Doc. 67).

I. BACKGROUND

1. The Complaint

Nicholas and Shonte, who are married, filed a complaint alleging that The City of

East St. Louis, Betts, and several additional defendants conspired to unlawfully terminate

Plaintiffs. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that when Shonte, who was a Commissioner on

the Board of the City of East St. Louis Housing Authority, reported that the Housing

Authority was not complying with federal law, Defendants retaliated by terminating her

employment with the Housing Authority. Plaintiffs also contend that Nicholas, who was

the Assistant Chief of Police for East St. Louis City, was terminated from his position with

the City of East St. Louis for the same reason.

2. Prior Discovery Dispute

In February 2025, Nicholas and Shonte served discovery requests on Defendants.

After Defendants missed the initial deadline, Plaintiffs twice extended the response date

(to March 21, then April 4, 2025). Defendants failed to respond by either extended

deadline, ignored Plaintiffs’ outreach, and only served responses on April 7, 2025, after

further prompting.

Plaintiffs moved to compel, asserting the responses were deficient:

e As to Nicholas: Defendants produced only his personnel file, failed to

search for or produce internal emails or communications, gave incomplete

answers to several interrogatories, and asserted meritless boilerplate

objections waived by the untimely responses.

e As to Shonte: Defendants refused to respond entirely, claiming no

obligation because she worked for the separate East St. Louis Housing

Authority.

Defendants’ response largely ignored Nicholas’s requests, offered no defense of

those answers, and reiterated that the Housing Authority was legally distinct. It

requested another 14 days to search for documents, claiming few had been found. The

Court granted the motion to compel in large part, sustaining only one objection, finding

two responses adequate, and determining the remaining objections and answers were

baseless, evasive, incomplete, or non-responsive. The Court ordered Defendants to serve

complete responses.

Given the nature of the Defendants’ conduct and deficient responses, the Court

found sanctions might be warranted and directed Plaintiffs to file a petition for

reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in bringing the motion.

3. Pending Discovery Dispute

Plaintiffs attempted to resolve the instant dispute without Court involvement, but

Defendants failed to respond. Plaintiffs therefore submitted the instant Discovery

Dispute Report, seeking the following:

1. An order compelling production of the disputed materials within

seven days;

2. An order compelling Defendants to retain, at their own cost, a

company to perform forensic imaging on any devices and email

servers used by Defendant Betts and other City employees named in

this lawsuit to locate material responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery

requests;

3. Coercive sanctions of $500.00 per day for continued noncompliance;

and

4. Attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the preparation of the

Discovery Dispute Report and related briefing.

Upon review, the Court found that the Discovery Dispute Report complied with

the Case Management Order and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to compel and

Defendant leave to respond. (Doc. 65). The Court further advised the parties that if

Plaintiffs did not file a motion to compel, and unless the parties advised that a ruling was

no longer necessary, the Court would resolve the dispute based solely on Plaintiffs’

Discovery Dispute Report. (Id.).

Plaintiffs did not file a motion to compel, and no party has informed the Court that

a ruling is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court resolves the dispute based on the

Discovery Dispute Report and addresses the contested discovery matters below.

II. DISCUSSION

1. Issue No. 1 - Nicholas’s RFP No. 9

Nick’s RFP no. 9 to the City requested: “All documents reflecting wage,

benefits, pension, retirement benefits and calculation, or other

compensation paid to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, pay stubs,

spreadsheets, and payroll records.”

Defendants produced only Nicholas’s personnel file. Plaintiffs’ counsel advised

Defendants that the file was insufficient and repeatedly requested payroll, benefit, and

pension records necessary to calculate damages. Despite multiple follow-ups,

Defendants either failed to respond or failed to meaningfully supplement. To date, no

responsive compensation records have been produced.

The information sought in RFP No. 9 is relevant and proportional under Rule

26(b)(1). Plaintiffs allege retaliatory termination and seek back pay, front pay, lost

benefits, and lost pension and retirement contributions. A personnel file does not contain

the financial data needed to quantify these losses. Payroll records, benefit summaries,

and pension calculations are the only reliable sources for determining historical earnings,

benefit values, and future losses. The request is narrowly tailored to Nicholas’s

compensation and does not seek information beyond what is necessary to calculate

damages. Accordingly, RFP No. 9 seeks relevant, proportional, and discoverable

information.

2. Issue No. 2 – Discovery Non-Compliance

Defendants produced no emails, texts, or other communications in response to

Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Production from a co-defendant revealed that responsive

communications exist. Further, Defendant Betts admitted in his deposition that he had

not reviewed his phone or email to determine whether responsive communications exist

and that no one had asked him to do so. This record demonstrates that Defendants failed

to conduct a reasonable search for electronically stored information and disregarded their

discovery obligations. Court intervention is therefore necessary to ensure compliance and

to restore the integrity of the discovery process.

While Plaintiffs submit that forensic imaging is now warranted, the Court finds

that a graduated, conditional remedy is appropriate to provide Defendants one final

opportunity to comply before imposing more intrusive relief.

3. Coercive Sanction

As to both issues, Defendants’ repeated noncompliance and disregard of

discovery obligations justify the imposition of a coercive sanction.

Coercive sanctions are designed to compel compliance with a court order. United

States v. Dowell, 257 F.3d 694, 699 (7th Cir. 2001). District courts have “broad discretion”

to fashion remedies that serve this purpose. Clay Financial LLC v. Mandell, 2020 WL

13608316, at *8. In doing so, courts must consider “the character and magnitude of the

harm by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction

in bringing about the result desired.” Autotech Techs. LP v. Integral Rsch. & Dev. Corp., 499

F.3d 737, 752 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting South Suburban Hous. Ctr. v. Berry, 186 F.3d 851, 854

(7th Cir. 1999)).

The Seventh Circuit has expressly recognized that monetary fines may be imposed

as coercive sanctions. F.T.C. v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754, 777 (7th Cir. 2009). A per diem fine

is civil—and therefore permissible—so long as the contemnor has the opportunity to

purge the sanction through compliance. Int’l Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829

(1994); Dowell, 257 F.3d at 699.

Here, a fine of $100 per business day is appropriate. The amount is modest, non-

punitive, and directly tied to Defendants’ continued noncompliance. It is sufficient to

incentivize prompt compliance, yet not so large as to be punitive or disproportionate.

Because Defendants can immediately avoid the fine by complying, the sanction is purely

coercive and aligned with the remedial purposes of civil contempt.

4. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows

1. As to RFP No. 9:

a. Defendants shall, within seven (7) days of this Order, produce all

documents reflecting wage, benefits, pension, retirement benefits and

calculations, or other compensation paid to Nicholas, including, but not

limited to, pay stubs, spreadsheets, and payroll records.

b. This production shall include, but is not limited to, Nicholas’s pension

account statement showing, at a minimum, accrued benefits amount,

employee contributions balance, employer contributions balance, and

service credit breakdowns.

c. Defendants shall incur a penalty of $100.00 per day, payable to Plaintiffs

Nicholas and Shonte Mueller for each day Defendants are non-compliant.

2. As to Issue No. 2:

a. Within ten (10) days of this Order, Defendants city of East St. Louis and

Robert Betts shall complete a renewed, good-faith search and produce all

responsive emails, text messages, and other electronic communications.

b. The search shall include, at a minimum:

i. All personal and business cell phones, computers, tablets, and email

accounts used by Defendant Betts and all City employees named in

this lawsuit for City business;

ii. All relevant custodians, data sources, and date ranges consistent

with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests; and

iii. Reasonable keyword and manual searches designed to locate

responsive communications.

c. Within seven (7) days after production, Defendants shall file sworn

declarations from Defendant Betts and a City official with knowledge,

identifying:

i. All custodians whose data was searched;

ii. All devices, accounts, and data sources reviewed;

iii. The date ranges and search methods used; and

iv. The steps taken to preserve, collect, and produce responsive

materials.

d. If Defendants fail to timely comply with any portion of this Order, or if the

production is materially deficient, the Court will, without further briefing,

order Defendants – at their own expense – to retain a neutral forensic

vendor to image the relevant devices and email systems and to collect

responsive material.

e. Defendants shall incur a penalty of $100.00 per business day, payable to

Plaintiffs Nicholas and Shonte Mueller, for each day they fail to comply

with this Order.

III. ATTORNEY FEES

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees in connection with the initial discovery

dispute (Doc. 26) and later filed a supplemental pleading seeking fees related to the

instant dispute (Doc. 67). Defendants did not respond to either filing, and the time to do

so has expired. The request is therefore ripe and unopposed.

Plaintiffs’ submissions show that counsel expended 2.1 hours preparing and filing

the initial Motion to Compel and Motion for Attorney’s Fees, at a rate of $715 per hour,

for a total of $1,501.50. As to the current dispute, Plaintiffs’ supplemental pleading shows

that counsel spent 0.9 hours preparing the Joint Discovery Report and 1.3 hours on the

supplemental briefing, for a total of 2.2 hours. Although counsel’s rate increased in 2026

to $785 per hour, Plaintiffs request fees at the 2025 rate of $715 per hour, totaling $1,573.00.

Together, Plaintiffs seek $3,074.50, representing 4.3 hours of attorney time at $715 per

hour.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), when a motion to compel is

granted,1 the Court must require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay

the movant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees. This Court applies the

1 Under the Court’s Case management Order, a party must first file a Discovery Dispute Report before seeking court

intervention. Plaintiffs complied. The Court then granted Plaintiffs leave to either file a formal motion or to stand on

the report. (Doc. 66). Plaintiffs elected to stand on their report, which the Court construes as a motion to compel for

purposes of Rule 37(a)95)(A).

lodestar method—multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours

reasonably expended — to determine reasonable fees. Rackemann v. LISNR, Inc., 2018 WL

3328140, at *6 (S.D. Ind. July 6, 2018). Time spent on tasks closely related to a motion to

compel, including meet-and-confer efforts and discovery dispute reports required by

local practice, is also recoverable under Rule 37(a)(5)(A). Id.

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ submissions (Docs. 26 and 67) and in light of

Defendants’ failure to oppose the request, the Court finds that the requested fee award

of $3,074.50 is reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 26)

and Supplemental Request for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 67) is GRANTED.

Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs $3,074.50 in attorney’s fees no later than February

27, 2026, payable to HKM Employment Attorneys LLP. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a

notice with the Court upon receipt of payment in full. If payment is not timely made,

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a notice with the Court on March 6, 2026, together with any

motion seeking additional relief.

SO ORDERED. L. J

Dated: February 10, 2026 Bane i J

DAVIDW.DUGAN

United States District Judge