The plaintiff in Synergetics, Inc. v. Hurst, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61286 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 21, 2007), had meritorious claims against three former employees who, according to the judge and the jury, cheated the plaintiff and then lied about it under oath. The plaintiff brought two suits — the instant one against Hurst and McGowan, and a separate one against Lumpkin. On the verge of trial against Hurst and McGowan, the plaintiff settled the case against Lumpkin on the express condition that he not testify at the other trial. The plaintiff proceeded to win a jury verdict in excess of $2.2 million against Hurst and McGowan, who then moved for a new trial and for sanctions. The Court found that the plaintiff’s conduct constituted witness tampering — providing consideration (under the settlement agreement) in return for which Lumpkin agreed, inter alia, not to testify. District Judge Catherine D. Perry found that there was no point in awarding a new trial, as the defendants were clearly culpable. At the same time, punishment was essential because ‛[w]itness tampering is an extremely serious offense, and strikes at the heart of the litigation process.“ The sanction: a 50% reduction in the jury verdict:

I have considered a variety of potential sanctions, but the only thing that makes any sense under these circumstances is a monetary sanction. It must be enough to punish Synergetics and show that courts cannot tolerate witness tampering, but it must not be so great that Hurst and McGowan are rewarded for their own bad behavior. I will order Synergetics to pay Hurst and McGowan jointly the sum of $ 1,172,776.66, which is one-half the total damages awarded, as a sanction.

Sanctions were imposed under the court’s inherent power.