Beam v. Hunter [formerly Beam v. Gonzales]

On October 9, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision ordering Jack and Renee Beam (the plaintiffs/appellants) to pay $8,300 to the Commission for litigation costs resulting from the Beams' lawsuit against the Commission.

Background

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice began an investigation into whether individuals connected with the law firm of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney, Johnson & Giroux, P.C. had violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) by reimbursing law firm employees and family members who made contributions to the John Edwards 2004 Presidential campaign. Jack Beam was “Of Counsel” to the law firm. In September 2006, the Commission notified the plaintiffs that the Commission had found reason to believe that they had committed civil violations of the Act by being part of the contribution reimbursement scheme. The Commission ultimately entered into a Conciliation Agreement with the Fieger law firm, but took no further action against any of the alleged conduits .

In 2007, the Beams filed a complaint in district court against the Commission and the Department of Justice which was dismissed and amended twice. The final amended complaint alleged in part that the Commission had obtained information about the Beams in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1976, 12 U.S.C. 3401-22 (the RFPA). The plaintiffs contended that the Department of Justice had transferred their banking records to the Commission without the certifications required by the RFPA. All other claims the Beams made in the case were dismissed.

During a discovery deposition, a Commission attorney indicated that he had seen the Beams’ financial information on a compact disc that the Department of Justice had provided to the Commission. Later, the attorney discovered the error and explained the mistake. Following a bench trial on plaintiffs’ RFPA claim, the district court judge decided in favor of the Commission, and the plaintiffs did not appeal that decision.

The Commission sought an award of litigation costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). The district court awarded the Commission $8,300.64 in costs. The plaintiffs appealed the award of costs.

Court decision

The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to the Commission. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) presumptively gives the prevailing party the right to recover its costs. The court stated that the prevailing party is the party that obtains a favorable judgment, which in this case was the Commission.

The court also upheld the district court’s decision that the Commission did not engage in any litigation misconduct that would justify a denial of an award of costs. The court held that the district court judge’s determination that the Commission attorney had simply made an honest mistake was not clearly erroneous. The court stated that since the plaintiffs apparently never had a solid basis to believe that the Commission had received their financial records without the certifications required by the RFPA, the plaintiffs must bear responsibility for the unnecessary litigation they pursued, and it was within the district court’s discretion to require them to pay the Commission’s litigation costs.

Related litigation:

• Bialek v. Mukasey [formerly Bialek v. Keisler; Bialek v. Gonzales], U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 07-CV-00321-WYD-PAL.
• Marcus v. Mukasey [formerly Marcus v. Gonzales], U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, CV070398-PCT-EHC.
• Beam v. Gonzales, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 07CV1227.

Source:   FEC Record — October 2012; August 2008; May 2008; August 2007; April 2007

Appeals Court (7th Circuit) (11-3386)

Court decisions:

• Final Judgment (10/09/2012)
• Order (10/09/2012)

Related documents:

• Reply Brief of Plaintiff-Appellants (08/15/2012)
• Brief of Appellee FEC and its Chair (07/30/2012)
• Brief for Appellants (08/15/2012)

District Court (Northern District of IL) (07-1227)

Court decisions:

• FEC's Notice of Satisfaction of Judgment (12/03/2012)
• Memorandum Opinion and Order (09/22/2011)
• Memorandum Opinion and Order (09/30/2010)
• Order Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine (07/27/2010)
• Memorandum Opinion and Order (02/04/2010)
• Memorandum Opinion and Order (10/15/2008)
• Memorandum Opinion and Order (03/07/2008)

Related documents:

• Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals from a Judgment or Order for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (10/21/2011)
• Federal Election Commission's Reply in Support of its Bill of Costs (11/30/2010)
• Plaintiffs' Objections to Defandant's Bill of Costs (11/17/2010)
• Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (09/13/2010)
• Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law (09/13/2010)
• Defendant's Memo in Support of its Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings Pursuant to Rule 52(c) (08/26/2010)
• Defendant's Memo in Support of its Motion to Compel Compliance with Local Rule 83.12(b) (08/13/2010)
• Defendant's Motion to Compel Compliance with N.D. Ill. Civ. R. 83.12(b) and Notice of Motion (08/13/2010)
• Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine (08/09/2010)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply Memo in Support of Motion in Limine (07/22/2010)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion in Limine (07/06/2010)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Memo in Support of Motion in Limine (07/06/2010)
• Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Combined Petition for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Motions to Amend Order and Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (06/03/2010)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply in Support of its Second Motion for Summary Judgment (05/18/2010)
• Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Jury Demand (05/18/2010)
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (05/04/2010)
• Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (04/01/2010)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Memorandum in Support of its Second Motion for Summary Judgment (03/29/2010)
• Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand (03/29/2010)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue (03/29/2010)
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (08/07/2009)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment (07/10/2009)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (02/25/2009)
• Defendant Attorney General's Reply Memorandum In Support of His Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (07/15/2008)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the FEC's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (07/15/2008)
• Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (07/01/2008)
• Defendant Attorney General's Memorandum In Support of His Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (05/27/2008)
• Memorandum of Law In Support of Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (05/23/08)
• Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (03/24/2008)
• Plaintiffs' Response In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (09/28/2007)
• Memorandum In Support of Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (08/24/2007)
• Defendant Attorney General's Memorandum in Support of His Motion to Dismiss (08/23/2007)
• First Amended Complaint and Application for Writ of Mandamus and Jury Demand (06/29/2007)
• Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss (05/24/2007)
• Defendant Attorney General's Reply Memorandum in Support of His Motion to Dismiss (05/23/2007)
• Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss (05/17/2007)
• Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Gonzales's Motion to Dismiss (05/17/2007)
• Brief in Support of Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment (05/10/2007)
• Defendant Attorney General's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Declaratory Judgment and in Support of His Motion to Dismiss (05/10/2007)
• Application for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint (03/02/2007)