THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. PAUL L. PARSHALL, d/b/a SPORTS BEER BREWING COMPANY, Defendant Civil No. 4:19-CV-01299 United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Filed April 29, 2021 Counsel Allison L. Ebeck, McGuireWoods LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Lucy J. Wheatley, Pro Hac Vice, Claire H. Eller, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff. Jason H. Beehler, Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, Columbus, OH, for Defendant. Wilson, Jennifer P., United States District Judge ORDER *1 Before the court is Defendant Paul L. Parshall d/b/a Sports Beer Brewing Company's (“Parshall”) motion to reevaluate sanctions order and Plaintiff The Pennsylvania State University's (“Penn State”) submission of fees and costs incurred related to its motion for Rule 37(b) sanctions. (Docs. 98, 99.) For the reasons stated herein, the court will deny Parshall's motion and award costs and fees to Penn State. BACKGROUND Because the court is writing for the parties, it will not re-state the events that led to the court's January 20, 2021 order. Rather, the court will simply reiterate that it granted Penn State's motion for Rule 37(b) sanctions in part, holding that: (1) Parshall failed to provide a truthful and accurate response to Interrogatory 14 in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's March 27, 2020 and May 4, 2020 orders; and (2) Parshall failed to search for electronically stored information in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's March 27, 2020 and May 4, 2020 orders. (Doc. 93, p. 9.)[1] As sanctions for these failures, the court precluded Parshall from introducing any evidence in his defense that was in his possession prior to May 18, 2020, including emails or documents on his computer, which was not produced to Penn State by that date, and from asserting that any state trademark registrations not previously disclosed to Penn State are a defense to Penn State's claims. (Id.) Rather than immediately assessing costs and fees against Parshall as requested by Penn State, the court ordered Parshall to show cause why it should not order the payment of costs and fees in accordance with the mandate in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C). (Id. at 10.) Thereafter, the court permitted Penn State to submit a response, including the specific costs and fees requested. (Id.) On February 4, 2021, Parshall filed the “motion to reevaluate sanctions order” currently before the court. (Doc. 98.) On February 8, 2021, Penn State responded to Parshall's motion and submitted a notice of the fees and costs incurred related to its motion for Rule 37(b) sanctions. (Doc. 99.) DISCUSSION Because Parshall is self-represented, the court will liberally construe his two-paragraph motion to reevaluate sanctions as both a motion for reconsideration and the response ordered by the court's January 20, 2021 order.[2] A. Motion for Reconsideration Addressing the motion for reconsideration first, a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must show either (1) “an intervening change in the controlling law;” (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court issued its prior order; or (3) “the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). Motions for reconsideration “should be granted sparingly as federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments.” Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 388 F. Supp. 3d 484, 488 (M.D. Pa. 2005). Further, the decision of whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is left to the discretion of the district court. Le v. Univ. of Pa., 321 F.3d 403, 405 (3d Cir. 2003). *2 Here, Parshall does not argue that there is an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent injustice. Rather, Parshall asserts that he did the best he could in responding to Interrogatory 14, and that he retained Alan F. Hamisch, an attorney, to search his computer for documents. (Doc. 98, p. 1.) However, as pointed out by Penn State, Parshall previously represented to the court that he did not hire Mr. Hamisch as his attorney, and that Mr. Hamisch simply assisted him in drafting responses to certain discovery requests. (Doc. 99, p. 3.) Further, in a conversation between Mr. Hamisch and Brad Newberg, counsel for Penn State, Mr. Hamisch explicitly stated that he did not represent Parshall, he was not provided access to Parshall's computer or emails, and he did not believe Parshall reviewed his emails. (Id.) Finally, the court's review of the docket in this case demonstrates that Mr. Hamisch has not entered an appearance on behalf of Parshall in this matter. Given that Parshall has not presented any viable basis upon which the court could grant relief, the court will deny his motion to reevaluate sanctions order to the extent he is asking for reconsideration. B. Attorneys' Fees and Costs Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) provides: “Instead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added). In its January 20, 2021 order, the court reserved ruling on Penn State's request for fees and costs and provided Parshall with the opportunity to show cause why the court should not order the payment of expenses in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2)(C). (Doc. 93, pp. 8–10.) Construing Parshall's motion to reevaluate sanctions order as responsive to the court's January 20, 2021 order, the court is constrained to award costs and fees to Penn State. Parshall did not show the court that his discovery failures were substantially justified, nor did he argue that an award of expenses would be unjust. (See Doc. 98.) As requested, Penn State submitted a detailed summary of its fees and costs related to its motion for Rule 37(b) sanctions. (Doc. 99-1, pp. 5–6.) In doing so, it reduced each attorney's hourly rate to those set by Community Legal Services of Philadelphia (“CLS”).[3] (Id. at 3, 5–6.) Having reviewed the itemized bill, the court concludes that the number of hours expended, 50.6, is reasonable. The court further finds that using the CLS rates for each attorney's experience level is appropriate, and the total fees incurred of $17,447.00 is reasonable within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT to the extent Parshall's motion to reevaluate sanctions order, Doc. 98, is a motion for reconsideration, that motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Parshall is sanctioned in the amount of $17,447.00, which shall be paid to Penn State's counsel by May 28, 2021. Footnotes [1] For ease of reference, the court utilizes the page numbers from the CM/ECF header. [2] Parshall's motion, Doc. 98, is typed rather than handwritten. The court notes its appreciation for Parshall submitting a typed document in this instance, as the legibility of the document enables the court's review of Parshall's argument. [3] The court previously awarded costs and fees to Penn State in its May 20, 2020 order and found that the Community Legal Services of Philadelphia hourly rates were the appropriate rates for this District.