While it is true that the defendants have taken multiple depositions and produced thousands of documents, the plaintiffs have agreed that all of that discovery can be used in a subsequent action. In addition to requiring a plaintiff to permit a defendant to use discovery in a subsequent case, see, e.g., Jenkins v. Unified School District No. 501, 175 F.R.D. 582, 584 (D.Kan.1997), typically a court imposes as a condition of dismissal without prejudice that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit, which usually include a reasonable attorney’s fee. United States v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 265 F.3d 1157, 1179 (10th Cir.2001) (citing Marlow v. Winston & Strawn, 19 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir.1994)); see also Cauley v. Wilson, 754 F.2d 769, 771-72 (7th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have indicated they will almost
holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal holding that beneficiaries of an alleged will may recover reasonable expenses and attorneys fees when defending a will in good faith holding that a district court may seek to reimburse the defendant for his attorneys fees because he or she faces a risk that the plaintiff will refile the suit and impose duplicative expenses upon him holding that where an action is brought in obvious breach of covenant not to sue court has wide discretion to impose liability for litigation expenses including attorneys fees holding that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in awarding opposing counsels attorneys fees and expenses as sanctions without affording the sanctioned party the right to examine question or provide argument against the claimed fees and expenses