New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Sanctions — Experts — Misstatement of Fact in Expert Report as Potentially Outside Rule 11

Download PDF

Plaintiff’s expert in Vidalia Dock & Storage Co. v. Donald Engine Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32026 (W.D. La. April 17, 2008), made a misstatement of fact, asserting that the plaintiff owned a vessel (M/V CARLA J) that was owned by someone else. Plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff were evidently aware of the error but did not correct it. The Court questioned whether this conduct was fairly within the scope of Rule 11:

With respect to the M/V CARLA J, this Court has questions regarding whether Rule 11 sanctions may be assessed against counsel for VDSC in connection with the ownership allegations concerning this vessel. The offending conduct with respect to this vessel is the production of VDSC’s expert report, authored by J. Stuart Woods, in which Mr. Woods represents VDSC owns the M/V CARLA J. However, counsel for VDSC did not sign the report. Neither party has briefed the issue of whether Rule 11 sanctions may be imposed against an attorney for misstatements of fact in a party’s expert report when the attorney did not sign the report, and this Court’s own research on the issue found no case on point. Thus, although the Court notes the practice of permitting an expert to misstate facts in an expert report and failing to correct such misstatement of fact may constitute, at best, poor lawyers, it appears, without knowing from where Woods obtained his information, counsel for VDSC did not commit a Rule 11 violation in connection with the issuance of this report.

Because the Court imposed Rule 11 sanctions for other reasons, this holding was not critical, but there are a few points worth noting about it: (i) “signing” is no longer the test under Rule 11 — it is “presenting” an offending paper to the court; (ii) production of an expert report to the other side probably is not “presenting” it to the court, as discovery papers are not allowed to be filed under Rule 5(d), and there is no other indication in the opinion that the report was presented to the court, other than in connection with the sanctions motion (which isn’t enough); (iii) 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions are available for unreasonable and vexatious litigation conduct, and inherent power sanctions are available for bad faith litigation abuse, regardless of “present[ation]” of any offending paper to the Court; and (iv) to the extent that the provenance of the misstatement is pertinent, the cases are clear that communications between counsel and expert are fair game, and they should be to the extent that the expert is relying on counsel for facts included in his or her opinion.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice