« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Sanctions Certiorari Grant by Supreme Court

Download PDF

On September 29, 2016, the Supreme Court granted cert on the following question:

Is a federal court required to tailor compensatory civil sanctions imposed under inherent powers to harm directly caused by sanctionable misconduct when the court does not afford sanctioned parties the protections of criminal due process?

No. 15-1406:  GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. v. HAEGER and No. 15-1491:  CFX     MUSNUFF v. HAEGER

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

§ 1447(c) Sanctions: No Bad Faith Required; Abuse of Discretion Review — Evidence on Sanctions Motions: Rule 408 Does Not Bar Consideration of Settlement Discussions to Prove Bad Faith in Connection with a Sanctions Proceeding (Here, Relevant to Size of Sanctions Award) — Adequate Opportunity to Be Heard Afforded by Allowing Supplemental Briefing

Interlocutory Orders (Here, Compelling Arbitration) Do Not Merge Into A Final Judgment Of Dismissal Under Rule 41(b)

“Sanctions Should Not Be Used Lightly, And Should Be Used As A Lethal Weapon Only Under Extreme Circumstances” (Good Quote) — Inherent Power to Dismiss for Violation of Court Order Or Rule of Procedure Should Be Confined to Instances of Bad Faith — Meaning of “Excusable Neglect” — Factors under Rule 60(b) (Relief from Final Judgment) — Involuntary Dismissals “Should Be Confined To Instances Of ‘Bad Faith — Dismissal Disfavored When Sanctionable Conduct Attributable to Counsel, Not Client

Purposes of Rule 37 Sanctions – Necessity District Court Set Forth Reasons – If Granted, Fees Are “Generally Mandatory” – Three Exceptions – 4 Ways An Appellant Can Abandon A Claim – Rule 69 Doesn’t Limite Post-Judgment Discovery to Federal, As Opposed to State, Discovery Mechanisms – Dismissal Without Prejudice After Statute Of Limitations Has Run Is Reviewed As If It Were With Prejudice

Rule 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment — Three Purposes of Rule 37 Sanctions — Oral Order Sufficient under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) — Consideration of Lesser Sanctions Need Not Explicit, Particularly If Misconduct Is Egregious — Recidivism Appropriately Considered

Rule 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment — Death Penalty Sanctions: 4 Factors: (1) Willfulness, Bad Faith Or Fault (e.g., Flouting Court Order), (2) Client, Not Counsel, Responsible, (3) Substantial Prejudice, (4) Lesser Sanctions Insufficient — For Non-Death Penalty Sanctions, Sanction Merely Need Be Just And Related to The Particular Claim at Issue — List of Sanctions in Rule 37 Is Not Exhaustive

Rule 11 Sanctions — Appealability: Mere Criticism in Order Separately Imposing Sanctions Is Unappealable — Due Process Satisfied by Order Giving Clear Notice of Specific Conduct to Be Considered for Sanctions Even If Words “Show Cause” (Rule 11(c)(3)) Missing — Firm Appearing on Signature Page “Present[s]” Brief to Court (Unless Merely “Secondary” Counsel) — When Counsel Appears Unopposed, A Stricter Standard of Candor Applies — Mischaracterization of Submitted Document Sanctionable — Good Quotes: “Rule 11 Is Not A Strict Liability Provision” / “The Argument Is Like The Thirteenth Chime of A Clock: You Not Only Know It’s Wrong, But It Causes You to Wonder About Everything You Heard Before” / “Pursuit of Sanctions by a Court Can Alter Its More Customary Relationship with Counsel and Its Role As Neutral Decisionmaker”

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Critical Evidence Generally Requires Willful Deception or Flagrant Disregard of Court Order — Disclosure of Undisclosed Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) During Discovery Precludes Claim of Surprise or Prejudice (and Satisfies Rule 26(e)(1)(A))

Inherent Power Sanctions — Notice of Contemplated Sanctions against Client (in Motion and Show Cause Order) Did Not Provide Notice of Potential Sanctions against Counsel — Finding of Bad Faith Required for Inherent Power Sanctions

Spoliation Sanctions: (1) Meaning of “Relevance” for Preservation vs. for Adverse Inference Purposes; (2) Only “Very Slight Showing” of Latter Required; (3) Adverse Inference Instruction OK for Negligent Spoliation of Tangible Evidence in D.C. Cir.; (4) Preponderance of Evidence for Adverse Inference Instruction vs. Clear & Convincing for Attorney’s Fees; (5) Wide Range of Inherent Power Sanctions Available; (6) Two Sets of Factors for Adverse Inference Instruction (D.C. Cir.) — Prerequisites and Propriety in the Circumstances; (7) Ordinary vs. Gross Negligence; (8) Cite

Archives