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:

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Including

Default Judgment against Defendants City of East St. Louis and Robert Betts (Doc. 79)

and the Court’s Show Cause Order regarding the same (Doc. 80). The Court has reviewed

the Motion, Defendants’ Response to the Show Cause Order (Doc. 81), Plaintiffs’ Reply

(Doc. 83), and the record in its entirety. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is

GRANTED. Default judgment is entered against Defendants City of East St. Louis and

Robert Betts on all claims.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Nicholas Mueller and Shonte Mueller, who are married, allege that

Defendants retaliated against them for whistleblowing by terminating their employment.

(Doc. 1). Plaintiffs assert claims against the City of East St. Louis Housing Authority; the

City of East St. Louis; the East St. Louis City Manager, Robert Betts; the Mayor of East St.

Louis, Charles Powell III (“Powell”); an East St. Louis Councilman, Courtney Hoffman

II; an East St. Louis City Councilman, LaVondo Pulley; and an East St. Louis Housing

Authority Agent, Michael Collins. Nicholas Mueller was the Assistant Chief of Police for

the City, and Shonte Mueller was a Commissioner on the Board of the East St. Louis

Housing Authority. At issue here is the repeated noncompliance of two Defendants: The

City of East St. Louis and Robert Betts.

On April 7, 2025, pursuant to the undersigned’s Case Management Order (Doc.

13), the parties submitted a joint discovery report regarding a series of missed deadlines

and inadequate responses to written discovery served on the City of East St. Louis.

(Attached hereto as Exhibit A). In the report, Plaintiffs alleged that the City missed the

original March 6, 2025 deadline for responding to Requests for Production and

Interrogatories, as well as two agreed extensions (to March 21 and April 4), and

ultimately served wholly inadequate responses consisting of only Nicholas Mueller’s

personnel file and a single blanket objection refusing to answer any discovery directed to

Shonte Mueller. The report further detailed that, during conference calls, defense counsel

admitted he had been unable to obtain responses from his client despite repeated

attempts, and specifically disclosed on April 4, 2025 that (a) no internal correspondence,

emails, or communications had been reviewed or collected for production, and (b) the

City intended to object to all of Shonte Mueller’s discovery requests on the ground that

she was not a City employee. Plaintiffs argued that both positions were legally baseless,

that any objections had been waived by the repeated untimely responses, and that the

City of East St. Louis was acting in bad faith.

After reviewing the report, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to

compel (Doc. 22), and Plaintiffs timely filed the motion on April 25, 2025 (Doc. 23).

Defendants Betts and the City of East St. Louis responded on May 2, 2025. (Doc. 24).

Defendants argued that Plaintiffs’ motion was based merely on “dissatisfaction with the

provided answers” rather than any genuine deficiency, asserted that the City of East St.

Louis has no legal authority over the separate East St. Louis Housing Authority and

therefore has no obligation to respond to any discovery directed to Shonte Mueller, stated

that they had been conducting a “diligent search” for responsive emails but had found

very few documents, requested an additional 14 days to complete the search, and

contended that sanctions (including attorney fees) were not warranted. (Id.). They further

argued that, if Plaintiffs believed the answers were false or misleading, their remedy was

to propound requests for admission rather than file a motion to compel. (Id.).

On May 12, 2025, the Court granted the motion in substantial part, finding that a

majority of Defendants’ responses were without basis, evasive, incomplete and/or non-

responsive. (Doc. 25). The Court ordered supplemental responses and document

production within 14 days and ordered the City to specify the steps and actions taken to

review and collect responsive documents and correspondence within 14 days of

production. (Id). The Court expressly reserved ruling on sanctions. (Id.).

Thereafter, Defendants produced virtually nothing responsive to the document

requests, resulting in Plaintiffs to submitting a second joint discovery report. (Doc. 69-1).

In that report, Plaintiffs detailed Defendants’ ongoing failure to produce Nicholas

Mueller’s full compensation records, including pay stubs, payroll records, pension

statements, and related documents critical for damages calculations, despite numerous

follow-up emails and requests from Plaintiffs’ counsel between November 17, 2025, and

January 16, 2026. Defense counsel repeatedly represented that meetings had been held

with the City and that the records had been requested from the City’s third-party

administrator, yet no documents were ever produced. The report further noted that

Defendants had produced no emails, texts, or other communications whatsoever, despite

evidence of responsive materials appearing in Plaintiffs’ own production and that of the

Housing Authority. During Defendant Betts’s deposition, he admitted under oath that he

had never searched his email or phone for responsive communications and that no one

had asked him to do so. (Doc. 69, p. 5; Doc. 69-1).1 Plaintiffs argued that this pattern

demonstrated willful obstruction of discovery.

Upon review of the second discovery report, the Court entered the following

order:

ORDER regarding the Plaintiffs' Discovery Report, which was informally

submitted to the Court by email on January 22, 2026. The Court FINDS the

Plaintiffs' submission complies with the Court's Case Management Order

(Doc. 13, pgs. 1-2) by making a good faith attempt to resolve the ongoing

discovery disputes without the Court's involvement. Considering

Defendants, the City of East St. Louis and Robert Betts, failure to respond

to Plaintiffs' attempts to resolve these discovery disputes, as well as the

pending allegations regarding prior discovery abuses, and consistent with

the Court's Case Management Order (Doc. 13, pgs. 1-2), Plaintiffs are

GRANTED LEAVE to file a Motion to Compel regarding the reported, but

unresolved, discovery disputes within 7 days of this date. Defendants are

DIRECTED to file a Response to any Motion to Compel within 7 days. The

Motion and Response, if filed, shall each be limited to 7 pages. In the event

1 Betts testified as follows:

Q: "Have you looked through your e-mail to see if you have e-mails that relate to kind of the subject of this litigation?"

A: "No, I haven't."

Q: "You haven't gone through that?"

A: "No, not specifically."

Q: "And you haven't gone through your phone to look for text messages -- "

A: "No."

Q: " -- to see if -- Okay. Were you asked to?"

A: "No."

that no Motion to Compel is filed by Plaintiffs, and unless the parties inform

the Court that a ruling is no longer necessary, the Court will proceed to

resolve the discovery disputes based only upon the Plaintiffs Discovery

Report. Additionally, Plaintiffs are GRANTED LEAVE to file a supplement

to the pending motion for attorney fees (Doc. 26) within 7 days of this date.

Defendants, the City of East St. Louis and Robert Betts, may file a response

to any such supplement within 7 days. The supplement to the motion for

attorney fees and response, if any, shall each be limited to 5 pages.

(Doc. 66).

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental briefing in support of their earlier filed motion for

attorney’s fees on January 25, 2026. (Doc. 67). In that supplemental briefing, Plaintiffs

indicated that, to preserve the parties and the court’s resources and to minimize

associated fee requests, Plaintiffs were electing to stand on the January 22, 2026 discovery

report as opposed to filing a second motion to compel. (Id). The City and Betts did not

respond.

On February 10, 2026, the Court issued a second order addressing the ongoing

discovery issues. (Doc. 69). It required production of Nicholas Mueller’s full

compensation records within 7 days, a renewed good-faith ESI search and production

within 10 days, sworn declarations to be filed with the Court within 7 days after

production, payment of $3,074.50 in attorney fees by February 27, 2026, and a $100-per-

business-day coercive sanction for non-compliance. The Order further provided that any

failure to comply would result in the Court ordering Defendants, at their sole expense, to

retain a neutral forensic vendor to image the relevant devices and email systems and

collect responsive material. (Id., pp. 7-8).

Defendants took no action in response to the Court’s February 10, 2026 Order.

Plaintiffs therefore filed the instant motion for sanctions. (Doc. 79). Plaintiffs reported

that, as of March 6, 2026, nearly one month after the second Court Order and despite the

explicit directives contained therein, Defendants had failed to comply with any

requirement imposed by that Order. Specifically, Defendants had not produced

Nicholas’s compensation records (due February 17, 2026), had not conducted or

produced the results of any renewed good-faith search for responsive emails, text

messages, or electronic communications from Defendant Betts or other City employees

named in the lawsuit (due February 20, 2026), had not filed the required sworn

declarations identifying custodians, devices, accounts, data sources, date ranges, and

search methods, had not paid the $3,074.50 in attorney’s fees (due February 27, 2026), and

had not paid the daily penalties of $100 per business day for noncompliance.

On March 9, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 80). Defendants

responded on March 24, 2026. (Doc. 81). Defendants represent that they paid the $3,074.50

in attorney’s fees to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 10, 2026. They further state that they

have supplemented their responses to Request for Production No. 9, consulted with

Plaintiffs’ counsel and agreed upon a forensic service provider to be engaged if the Court

orders imaging, explained that payroll records prior to 2023 were purged by the City’s

third-party administrator (of which the City was unaware), and noted that Nicholas

Mueller’s pension records are maintained by the East St. Louis Police Pension Fund

rather than the City. While acknowledging prior difficulties complying with the Court’s

discovery orders, Defendants assert that their conduct has not been willful or in bad faith,

that discovery has otherwise progressed (including multiple depositions), and that they

have placed the matter on successive City Council agendas with two council members

attending the mediation, which was scheduled for March 27, 2026, in an effort to resolve

both the discovery issues and the litigation as a whole.2 Defendants request that the Court

deny the Motion for Sanctions and permit the case to proceed to trial on the merits.

In their Reply to Defendants’ Response to the Court’s Show Cause Order, filed

March 31, 2026, Plaintiffs represent that Defendants paid the $3,074.50 in attorney’s fees

only on March 10, 2026, four days after Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Sanctions

and more than a month after the February 27 deadline, and that Defendants still owe an

additional $7,771.50 in fees incurred in preparing that motion under Rule 37(b)(2)(C).

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants mischaracterize the February 10, 2026 Order by

claiming they have “consulted with Plaintiff’s counsel and agreed on a forensic service

firm,” when, in Plaintiffs’ view, forensic imaging was automatically triggered by

Defendants’ total failure to produce any responsive emails, text messages, or electronic

communications by February 20, 2026, or to file the required sworn declarations.3

Plaintiffs further clarify that on March 9, 2026, Defendants’ counsel provided the name

of two forensic service providers, and the undersigned confirmed that one of the

providers appeared to be sufficient, but nothing further was discussed or agreed on.

Additionally, Plaintiffs state that Defendants produced only partial compensation

2 The mediation was held on March 27, 2026, but the case did not settle. (Doc. 82).

3 The February 10, 2026 Order provides as follows: “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 to collect responsive

material.” (Doc. 69, pgs. 7-8).

records (March–October 2023 pay stubs) on March 20, 2026 and have failed to pay the

coercive daily penalty. Plaintiffs vigorously dispute Defendants’ claims of good-faith

diligence, emphasizing the extended pattern of willful noncompliance with both the May

12, 2025 and February 10, 2026 Orders, and maintain that the resulting prejudice to

Plaintiffs warrants the severe sanctions sought.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) expressly authorizes a district court to

impose “just orders,” including rendering a default judgment against the disobedient

party, when a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. FED. R. CIV. P.

37(b)(2)(A)(vi). Independently, a federal court possesses inherent authority to sanction

litigation misconduct that abuses the judicial process, including willful violations of its

orders. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–46 (1991); Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc.,

845 F.3d 772, 775–76 (7th Cir. 2016). Either source of power requires a finding that the

party acted with a degree of culpability exceeding simple inadvertence or mistake;

specifically, willfulness, bad faith, or fault. Ramirez, 845 F.3d at 776 (citing Societe

Internationale pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197,

212 (1958)); Nelson v. United States, 712 F. App’x 573, 575–76 (7th Cir. 2018). The requisite

facts need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Ramirez, 845 F.3d at

778–81 (overruling Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2003), to the extent it

required clear and convincing evidence).

In determining whether the severe sanction of default judgment is warranted, the

Court considers the full circumstances of the case, including (1) the party’s pattern of and

personal responsibility for the violations, (2) the resulting prejudice to the opposing

party, (3) whether lesser sanctions have proven unavailing, and (4) the overall

proportionality of default to the misconduct. Nelson, 712 F. App’x at 576; e360 Insight, Inc.

v. Spamhaus Project, 658 F.3d 637, 642–43 (7th Cir. 2011); Domanus v. Lewicki, 288 F.R.D.

416, 419–20 (N.D. Ill. 2013), aff’d, 742 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2014). A clear record of delay or

contumacious conduct, especially where monetary penalties and explicit warnings have

failed to secure compliance, supports the conclusion that lesser sanctions would be

ineffective and that default judgment is proportionate. S.E.C. v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 678

(7th Cir. 2008); Domanus, 288 F.R.D. at 421–22.

III. ANALYSIS

In the instant case, the record establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that

Defendants City of East St. Louis and Robert Betts have engaged in willful, bad-faith, and

contumacious noncompliance with two successive Court orders spanning nearly ten

months. The May 12, 2025 Order required Defendants to review, collect, and produce

responsive documents and to articulate the steps taken to do so. Instead, Defendants

produced virtually nothing, and Defendant Betts admitted under oath during his

deposition that he had never searched his own email or phone, the very devices most

likely to contain responsive communications, and that no one had even asked him to do

so. Faced with this continued defiance, the Court issued a second, even more explicit

Order on February 10, 2026. That Order directed production of Nicholas Mueller’s full

compensation records within seven days, a renewed good-faith ESI search and

production within ten days, sworn declarations identifying custodians and search

methods within seven days after production, payment of $3,074.50 in attorney’s fees by

February 27, 2026, and a daily $100 coercive penalty for noncompliance. The February 10

Order also expressly provided that if Defendants failed to timely comply with any

portion of the Order, the Court would, without further briefing, order Defendants, at

their sole expense, to retain a neutral forensic vendor to image the relevant devices and

email systems and collect responsive material.4

Defendants did nothing for nearly a month. They produced no compensation

records by the February 17 deadline, conducted no renewed ESI search and produced no

emails or text messages by the February 20 deadline, filed no sworn declarations, paid no

attorney’s fees by the February 27 deadline, and paid none of the accumulating daily

penalties. Only after Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Sanctions on March 6, 2026, and the

Court issued its Show Cause Order on March 9, 2026, did Defendants make any

movement, and even then it was late and incomplete. The $3,074.50 in attorney’s fees was

paid four days after the motion; only a handful of 2023 pay stubs (far short of the full

compensation records ordered) were produced on March 20, 2026; an ESI search has not

been completed; and no responsive emails or texts have been produced. Instead,

Defendants merely represent that they have consulted with Plaintiffs’ counsel and agreed

upon a forensic service provider to be engaged if the Court so orders. This is not good-

4 Plaintiffs contend that, following noncompliance, Defendants were immediately required to retain a neutral forensic

vendor. Although the February 10, 2026 Order stated that the Court “will without further briefing, order Defendants”

to retain a neutral forensic vendor upon noncompliance, the Court has not yet entered any such specific directive.

Accordingly, while Defendants’ failure to produce the required materials by the February 20, 2026 deadline satisfied

the condition precedent for that relief, the Court does not treat their pre-order failure to retain a forensic vendor on

their own initiative as an independent violation of the February 10 Order.

faith bureaucratic delay; it is the type of flagrant bad faith and willful noncompliance that

justifies default judgment. See Moore v. Doe, 108 F.3d 1379 (7th Cir. 1997); Newman v.

Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Auth., 962 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir.1992); Domanus, 288 F.R.D.

at 421–22.

Defendants’ reliance on internal municipal bureaucracy, such as the need for

successive City Council agendas and approvals, is insufficient to avoid sanctions.

Governmental defendants receive no special exemption from their Rule 37 obligations

merely because of internal approval processes. See e.g., Cowell v. Illinois Dep’t of Hum.

Servs., No. 3:21-CV-478-NJR, 2023 WL 2184815, at *2–3 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2023) (rejecting a

state agency’s claim that internal confusion over “which office should take responsibility

for payment” justified ignoring multiple court orders, and holding that “[i]nternal

confusion or processing does not excuse [counsel’s] lack of effort in notifying the Court

of the challenges he faced”).

Defendants’ additional post-show-cause excuses, such as asserting that they only

recently learned that a third-party payroll administrator had purged pre-2023 records

and that pension data is maintained by a separate fund, are equally unavailing. These

obstacles could and should have been discovered and communicated to Plaintiffs and the

Court long ago rather than ignored for nearly a full year.

Defendants’ claim that “discovery has otherwise progressed,” including through

depositions, is irrelevant. The specific orders at issue required production of discrete

categories of documents and information that go to the heart of Plaintiffs’ damages

calculations and key liability theories. Partial or belated compliance does not cure months

of defiance.

At this advanced stage of the litigation (discovery closed on March 24, 2026,

dispositive motions are due in approximately one month, trial is set for August 2026, and

mediation already completed albeit unsuccessfully) the resulting prejudice to Plaintiffs

and disruption of the Court’s docket warrant sanctions regardless of Defendants’ last-

minute assertions of good faith. See Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 294 (7th Cir. 2014).

Moreover, the Court’s $100-per-business-day coercive sanction, which now totals

$3,100.00 and continues to accrue,5 has proven entirely ineffective. Defendants’

willingness to absorb the accumulating fine rather than comply demonstrates that

monetary sanctions alone are futile.

The prejudice to Plaintiffs is both severe and ongoing. Without the required

compensation records and the emails/text messages that Defendant Betts admittedly

never searched for, Plaintiffs cannot properly calculate damages, retain and prepare an

economic expert, or fully develop their retaliation and conspiracy claims.

Defendants have now demonstrated, through repeated and willful disregard of

explicit court orders, deadlines, accumulating daily fines, and the threat of forensic

imaging, that no sanction short of default judgment will vindicate the Court’s authority

or restore the integrity of the discovery process. Default judgment is the proportionate,

5 Although Plaintiffs argue in their Reply that separate $100.00 per business day penalties accrue independently for

each unmet requirement of the February 10, 2026 Order, the Court interprets the coercive sanction provision as

imposing a single penalty of $100.00 per business day that accrues until Defendants achieve full compliance with all

provisions of that Order.

necessary, and just response under both Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) and the Court’s inherent

authority. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions is therefore granted, and default judgment will

be entered against Defendants City of East St. Louis and Robert Betts on all claims

asserted against them, together with the ancillary relief detailed below.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Including Default

Judgment (Doc. 79) is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Default judgment is entered against Defendants City of East St. Louis and Robert

Betts on all claims asserted against them in this action.

2. Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendants City of East St. Louis

and Robert Betts shall retain, at their sole expense, a neutral forensic vendor whose

qualifications are subject to approval by Plaintiffs’ counsel or the Court. The

vendor shall perform forensic imaging of all relevant devices, email accounts, and

electronic data sources used by Defendant Betts and all City employees named in

this lawsuit during the relevant time periods. The forensic imaging shall be

completed, and all responsive materials produced directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel,

within fourteen (14) days after the vendor is retained.

3. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall pay to

Plaintiffs the accrued daily penalty imposed by the Court’s February 10, 2026

Order, which as of the date of this Order amounts to $3,100.00. The $100.00 per

business day coercive sanction shall continue to accrue until Defendants have (1)

fully complied with every remaining obligation under the February 10, 2026 Order

and (2) paid all accrued sanctions in full. Upon full compliance and payment, the

daily fine shall cease to accrue;

4. Defendants shall pay to Plaintiffs’ counsel the sum of $7,771.50 for reasonable

attorney’s fees incurred in preparing the Motion for Sanctions and Reply, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C). This payment shall be made within

fourteen (14) days of this Order.

5. The amount of damages, if any, to which Plaintiffs are entitled against Defendants

City of East St. Louis and Robert Betts will be determined at a later date, after such

further proceedings as the Court deems appropriate. This action shall proceed

against the remaining Defendants.

6. Given the discovery delays detailed herein, the Court sua sponte extends the

discovery deadline to May 22, 2026 and the dispositive motion deadline to June

22, 2026. The final pretrial conference and trial dates are VACATED and will be

re-set by separate order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2026 Lip

DAVID W. DUGAN

United States District Judge

14