On August 21, 2007, a federal judge in St. Louis imposed sanctions on a party for entering into a settlement agreement that precluded a third party witness from testifying at trial (see our post of August 25, 2007). Two days later, on August 23, District Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District of New York imposed a formal reprimand and attorneys' fees on a major New York law firm for repeatedly attempting, in bad faith, to dissuade a subpoenaed non-party witness from appearing at a deposition in post-judgment proceedings to enforce a $57 million judgment against the Republic of Congo. Kensington Int’l Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, No. 03 Civ. 4578 (LAP), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63115 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2007). In issuing these sanctions pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers, Judge Preska relied on multiple factors, including appeals to patriotism to persuade the Congolese native not to give testimony, purported advice on American law and deposition practice given to him by a lawyer admitted to practice in France (and not the U.S.), and what was determined to be incredible testimony from that lawyer. Two factors in particular are important for practitioners. First, the Court looked dimly on the sanctioned law firm’s failure to seek a protective order if it had legitimate reasons to postpone or avoid the deposition. Judge Preska ruled that: ‛in forgoing the legal means at its disposal for postponing or defining the terms of the deposition, [the law firm] made a choice to achieve its goals through illegitimate means: contacting [the witness] directly and persuading him to avoid the deposition.“ Second, the Court took the firm to task for sending a misleading email which purported to explain why the witness wanted to postpone the deposition, which, the Court found, ‛suggests the law firm had something to hide.“ Failure to seek protective orders (i.e., self-help) and less than candid emails are par for the course. They are also very dangerous.