Smith v. Forest River, Inc.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. On Plaintiff’s original motion for sanctions, the court ordered supplemental production from the Defendant (of documents already located by the Plaintiff in the possession of third parties). The court, however, did not award sanctions based principally on Defendant’s representations that the limited database of complaints maintained by the Defendant was not searchable for the information requested. In the motion for reconsideration, the Plaintiff demonstrated the existence of three searchable databases maintained by the Defendant regarding customer complaints and warranty claims that contained relevant information that were not searched by the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserted that the motion for sanctions should be reconsidered in light of the searchable databases.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(A), the court granted the Plaintiff an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs caused by the Defendant’s failure to search the three databases. The court declined to impose harsher sanctions. The court held that the Defendant’s conduct did not constitute willful inaction because the sources of information were not obvious as to create an inference of “willful inaction.” Moreover, the record did not disclose “willful non-compliance.” Lastly, the information that the Plaintiff was seeking was only tangentially related to their fraud claim and does not warrant more severe sanctions. The court awarded the Plaintiff $3,000 in attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 91)

Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 93)

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 95)

Order (Doc. 109)