In Mueller v. City of E. St. Louis, No. 24-cv-2321-DWD (S.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2026), Illinois District Judge David W. Dugan ordered the defendant to pay coercive sanctions for repeated discovery violations, among other rulings.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

During discovery, plaintiffs served requests seeking documents and communications relevant to their termination and damages claims. The defendants repeatedly failed to respond in a timely or complete manner, prompting the plaintiffs to seek court intervention. This dispute was not the first such issue in the case; Judge Dugan noted that the plaintiffs had already been forced to pursue a motion to compel due to earlier deficiencies in the defendants’ discovery responses.

As Judge Dugan observed, the defendants initially ignored deadlines and produced responses only after repeated extensions and follow-ups. Even then, the responses were incomplete and contained boilerplate objections. The court had previously granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel in large part, finding many of the defendants’ responses “baseless, evasive, incomplete, or non-responsive.”

Despite that earlier ruling, discovery problems persisted.

Failure to Produce Compensation Records

The first issue addressed by Judge Dugan concerned a request for production seeking documents reflecting Nicholas Mueller’s compensation, including wages, benefits, pension information, and related financial records. The defendants produced only Mueller’s personnel file.

Judge Dugan found that production insufficient. Because the plaintiffs claim retaliatory termination and seek damages including lost wages and benefits, the requested information was central to calculating those damages. As he explained, the personnel file alone does not contain the necessary financial data.

Judge Dugan emphasized that the request fell squarely within the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). In his words, “The information sought in RFP No. 9 is relevant and proportional under Rule 26(b)(1).”

Judge Dugan further explained that payroll records and benefit summaries are “the only reliable sources for determining historical earnings, benefit values, and future losses.”

Accordingly, Judge Dugan ordered the defendants to produce all responsive compensation documents within seven days, including pay records, spreadsheets, and pension statements detailing employee and employer contributions and accrued benefits.

Failure to Search for Electronic Communications

The second major issue involved the defendants’ failure to produce emails, text messages, or other electronic communications responsive to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Evidence in the record suggested that responsive communications existed, including documents obtained from another defendant.

Moreover, deposition testimony revealed that the defendant Betts had not even reviewed his phone or email accounts to determine whether responsive communications existed. Judge Dugan found this failure especially troubling. As the opinion noted, the record demonstrated that the defendants “failed to conduct a reasonable search for electronically stored information and disregarded their discovery obligations.”

The plaintiffs requested that the court immediately order forensic imaging of the defendants’ devices and email systems. While acknowledging the seriousness of the discovery failures, Judge Dugan chose a more measured approach. Instead of immediately ordering forensic imaging, Judge Dugan provided the defendants one final opportunity to comply voluntarily.

Judge Dugan described this approach as a “graduated, conditional remedy” designed to give the defendants a final chance to meet their discovery obligations before imposing more intrusive measures.

Under the order, the defendants must conduct a renewed good-faith search for responsive electronic communications within ten days. The search must include all relevant custodians and data sources, including personal and business devices used for city business, and must involve both keyword searches and manual review.

To ensure accountability, Judge Dugan also required the defendants to submit sworn declarations identifying the custodians searched, the devices and accounts reviewed, the date ranges examined, and the methods used to locate responsive material.

Judge Dugan warned that failure to comply with these requirements would result in the appointment of a neutral forensic vendor—at the defendants’ expense—to image the relevant devices and email systems and collect responsive information.

Imposition of Coercive Sanctions

Given the defendants’ repeated discovery violations, Judge Dugan determined that sanctions were warranted. He explained that coercive sanctions are intended to compel compliance with court orders and that district courts possess “broad discretion” to craft appropriate remedies.

Citing Seventh Circuit precedent, Judge Dugan noted that monetary fines may be used as coercive sanctions so long as the party has the opportunity to purge the sanction by complying with the court’s order. Judge Dugan therefore imposed a fine of $100 per business day for each day the defendants fail to comply with the discovery requirements.

Judge Dugan described this sanction as “modest, non-punitive, and directly tied to Defendants’ continued noncompliance,” explaining that it was intended to incentivize prompt compliance rather than punish the defendants.

Attorney’s Fees Award

Finally, Judge Dugan addressed the plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees related to the discovery disputes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), when a motion to compel is granted, the court must generally require the non-complying party to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses unless certain exceptions apply.

The plaintiffs documented that their counsel spent 4.3 hours addressing the discovery disputes, including preparation of a motion to compel, a discovery dispute report, and supplemental briefing. Using the lodestar method—multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate—Judge Dugan determined that the requested fee award of $3,074.50 was reasonable.

Because the defendants did not oppose the request, Judge Dugan granted the motion and ordered payment of the fees to plaintiffs’ counsel.

So, what do you think? Were the coercive sanctions warranted? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.