ILNews

Court clarifies attorney fee recovery under Trial Rule 34(C)(3)

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Tuesday decided that under Indiana Trial Rule 34(C)(3), refusing to comply with a discovery request solely because the parties can’t agree on an appropriate amount to pay does not constitute reasonable resistance to a discovery request.

Lisa Gonzalez subpoenaed R. Stanton Evans for information about her ex-husband’s business interests. Evans is a business partner in 31 of those endeavors, and Gonzalez believed that her ex-husband undervalued the marital estate in their divorce and fraudulently induced her to accept the property settlement agreement.

Evans believed the subpoena was too broad. Months passed, and although Evans had already compiled the nearly 1,000 pages of documents, Evans demanded $1,500 in attorney fees and $500 for his time before turning over the documents. Gonzalez paid the $500 but refused to pay attorney fees, instead filing a motion to compel. Evans claimed any grant of the motion should be conditioned upon her prepayment of damages incurred by Evans in his “reasonable resistance.” Evans never sought to quash or limit the subpoena in court and never sought a protective order.

The court eventually ordered Gonzalez to pay Evans $8,289.33 in attorney fees and did not award her any attorney fees for Evans initial noncooperation.

The gist of the case is Evans’ claims that he was entitled to insist that Gonzalez pay attorney fees to him in an amount he requested before he had to comply with the subpoena, based on T.R. 34(C)(3). The rule says damages shall include reasonable attorney fees incurred in “reasonable resistance.” He claimed he reasonably resisted the subpoena because she refused to pay any security against any damages he might sustain, so he is entitled to the attorney fees.

Citing IBM v. ACS Human Servs. LLC, 999, N.E.2d 880, 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), the only other Indiana case directly addressing this trial rule, the judges concluded the amount of attorney fees award to Evans exceeded the bounds of what is contemplated by the rule.

“The key here in our view is that Gonzalez proximately caused only a small percentage of the attorney fees that Evans incurred,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote in Lisa B. Gonzalez v. R. Stanton Evans, 29A02-1311-DR-984. Evans is entitled to attorney fees, but not the amount originally ordered. The judges ordered the trial court to determine how much in fees Evans incurred in relation to his compliance with the subpoena and document review.

The judges also held that the rule does not permit a non-party to unilaterally withhold documents requested by a subpoena on the condition that the requesting party first pays attorney fees in an amount demanded by the non-party.

“Even if Trial Rule 34(C)(3) permits a subpoenaed party to ask for prepayment of security from the subpoenaing party, we do not believe that a disagreement between the parties as to the appropriate amount of such security permits the subpoenaed party to withhold the documents indefinitely and to run up more attorney fees in the process,” he wrote.

They also affirmed the denial of attorney fees to Gonzalez because they found she waived her claim by failing to present some evidence or argument regarding her attorney fees.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT