Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

This is the final installment of Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz’ request that sanctions be levied against McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren for actions taken by Nygren, his staff and his attorney James Sotos.

Paragraphing and formatting has been added in the text to make the text easier to read on a computer screen as we move to the sanctions that are requested.

Concluding the court filing is a plea for


“Defendants’ conduct warrants a Rule 37 sanctions in the form an entry of a default judgment against Defendants and/or a ruling as to their affirmative defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 authorizes the court to sanction a party for failing to obey an order or ruling to provide discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).

“Such sanctions may include

  • ‘prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting . . . designated . . . defenses,’
  • ‘striking pleadings in whole or in part’ or
  • ‘rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party.’

“Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), (iii) and (vi); see also Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Auth., 962 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir. 1992)(approving entry of default judgment as sanction for defendant’s failure to comply with orders).

“For purposes of Rule 37(b) sanctions, “order” or ‘ruling’ are broadly construed. See Brandt v. Vulcan, Inc., 30 F.3d 752, 756 (7th Cir. 1994).

“A formal, written order by the court is not required. See Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992)(Rule 37(b) sanctions imposed on party that engaged in ‘evasive and dilatory discovery tactics’). Also see Godlove v. Bamberger, 903F.2d 1145, 1148 (7th Cir. 1990) (granting the Court broad discretion); Thomas Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Herbst, 456 F.3d 719, 724 (7thCir. 2006) (citing Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 467-68 (7th Cir. 2003).

Also see Sameron v. Enter. Recovery Sys., Inc., 579 F.3d 787, 795 (7th Cir. 2009) (tendering sensitive documents to a member of the press demonstrates a willful violation).

“Sheriff Nygren misrepresented himself to this Court to induce this Court to believe that he had not tendered the deposition transcript to the Northwest Herald.

“This misrepresentation can result in severe sanctions. Montaño v. City of Chicago, 535 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2008).

“Regardless of the Nygren fraud upon the Court, Sheriff Nygren and the other officers, including Defendant Miller, clearly tendered the deposition transcript to third parties (Zinke, Rivera and Ellis).

“The parties, as officers, knew that the deposition was confidential and sensitive but flaunted that knowledge and did what they wanted. The intent and motive is clear – if you speak out against the Sheriff, you will be punished.

“The distribution of the confidential police report preceded the Milliman episode.

“The distribution violated Illinois Statutory law. 20 ILCS 2630/7.

“The Sotos firm received the document and the Defendants distributed it to fellow officers to taint their perspective of Mr. Seipler.

“Terminating sanctions is appropriate for flagrant violation of this Court’s order. Greviskes v. Univ. Research Assoc., Inc., 417 F.3d 752, 754 (7th Cir. 2005).

“The above record demonstrates that terminating sanctions is in order.”

Judge Frederick J. Kapala will be the one to decide on both McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren’s attorney’s request for sanctions against Zane Seipler and Seipler’s attorney’s counter request against Nygren.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.