Case Blurb: Santana; Awarding of Attorney’s Fees Under FRCP 37(a)(5)
Posted by rjbiii on April 8, 2011
Rule 37(a)(5) provides that if a court grants a motion to compel discovery “– or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed — the court must . . . require the party or deponent whose con-duct necessitated the motion . . . to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees,” unless the court finds that “that opposing party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified” or “other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
Santana v. RCSH Opers. LLC., CASE NO. 10-61376-CIV-SELTZER, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21785 @ *15 (S.D. Fla Feb. 18, 2011).
This entry was posted on April 8, 2011 at 2:07 am and is filed under 11th Circuit, Case Blurbs, FRCP 37(a), Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer, S.D. Fla., Sanctions, Spoliation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
