# Mueller

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · April 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11313155

## Case

- **Full name:** Nicholas Mueller et al. v. City of East St. Louis, IL et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** April 6, 2026
- **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/11313155

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11313155. Public record. Not legal advice.