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

Inherent Power Sanctions — Bad Faith Inferable If Acts Are “So Completely without Merit” — More Exacting Abuse of Discretion Standard in Sanctions Appeals — Claim Colorable If It Has Some Legal, Factual Support and a Reasonable Belief in It

Download PDF

Hollon v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20237 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2014):

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED AND REMANDED.

Gary J. Douglas appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Keenan, J.), imposing sanctions on him for his conduct in delivering his closing argument during a trial in which the plaintiff alleged defective design of Fosamax, a drug manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The district court described [*2]  Douglas' closing argument as having been given "in an agitated tone, scuttling about the well of the courtroom, oddly gesturing, singing, and laughing." The court described his style as "aggressive and boisterous," even "manic." Counsel for Merck called it "vaudeville."

After an order to show cause and a hearing, the district court imposed sanctions on the ground that Douglas acted contrary to an earlier ruling that "punitive damages [were] out of the case," when Douglas "insidiously sought to inject [the issue of punitive damages] into the trial during his summation." The court concluded that Douglas' intent could be inferred from his remarks, which included urging the jury to "say something to Merck," and describing Merck's conduct as "reprehensible" and "disgusting."

A district court has inherent power to impose sanctions if: (1) the challenged claim was without a colorable basis and (2) the claim was brought in bad faith. Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Scivantage, 564 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2009). "[A] claim is colorable when it has some legal and factual support, considered in light of the reasonable beliefs of the individual making the claim." Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323, 337 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 78

"We review a district court's decision to impose sanctions under its inherent [*3]  powers for abuse of discretion. Even under this deferential standard of review, however, this Court must be careful to ensure that any such decision to sanction a[n] . . . attorney is made with restraint and discretion." Wilson v. Citigroup, N.A., 702 F.3d 720, 723 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "Because the trial court imposing sanctions may act as accuser, fact finder and sentencing judge all in one, our review of such an order is more exacting than under the ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard." Enmon v. Prospect Capital Corp., 675 F.3d 138, 143 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citations and alterations omitted).

"Bad faith can be inferred when the actions taken are so completely without merit." Schlaifer, 194 F.3d at 338 (internal quotation marks omitted). But Douglas' remarks in summation are not self-evidently improper, and the district court did not expressly link these remarks with other behaviors or other factors that might bear upon the issue of bad faith. In short, the district court did not make the requisite "factual findings of bad faith . . . characterized by a high degree of specificity." Id. For that reason, the record is insufficient to support the requisite review.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: The “Intent to Deprive” Standard in Rule 37(e)(2) Is The Equivalent of Bad Faith in Other Spoliation Contexts — Bad Faith Generally Means Destruction For The Purpose Of Hiding Adverse Evidence — Mere Negligence Is Insufficient Because It Does Not Sustain An Inference of Consciousness of a Weak Case

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

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