No Authority Shown To Conclude Otherwise, With Routine Costs And Actual Discovery Sanctions Serving Distinct Purposes.
In BBBB Bonding Corp. v. Pilling-Miller, Case Nos. H050703 et al. (6th Dist. May 10, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff lost trade secret misappropriation and related claims, with costs of $34,989 out of a requested $44,989 awarded to the prevailing defendants. Among other items, defendants requested filing fees for discovery motion which were unsuccessful, even though the lower court denied imposition of attorney’s fees against defendants in the earlier discovery motion proceedings. Plaintiff claimed error, arguing that the denial of motion fees as a discovery sanction precluded the award of routine motion filing fees to defendants. The trial court disagreed, as did the appellate court. Plaintiff cited no authority showing that such minor routine costs were precluded, with the appellate court adding that the policies behind discovery sanctions on the merits and an award of routine filing fees serving distinct purposes.
Comments