United States Seventh Circuit

In a qui tam action involving allegations of fraudulent student loan debt collection practices, grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit with prejudice as a sanction for the willful leaks of a document where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the "attorneys' eyes only" agreement encompassed the Guarantee Services Agreement; 2) district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff's attorney had willfully violated the "attorneys' eyes only" agreement by leaking the Guarantee Services Agreement to unauthorized third parties; 3) plaintiff's attorney had been given a final warning after pattern of misconduct and had been warned that further misconduct was likely to result in more drastic sanctions.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/14/2009
• Decided 08/27/2009
• Published 08/27/2009

Judges

• MANION, Circuit Judge., Before RIPPLE, MANION, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Barry Levenstam (argued), Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Matthew P. Connelly, Connelly, Roberts & McGivney, Jeffrey W. Sarles (argued), Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.