Greg Joseph - Joseph Hage Aaronson

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

Lara v. Power of Grace Trucking, LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18593, *1, 2022 WL 304982 (Feb. 2, 2022 (Report and Recommendation): BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs Miguel Lara and Maria Estela Lara’s (collectively, “Compelling Plaintiffs”) Amended Motion for Sanctions…

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”

Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. v. State St. Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 3556 (1st Cir. Feb. 9, 2022) Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP served as one of the principal law firms representing a class of investors in a very…

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))

Cost v. Borough of Dickson City, 2021 WL 2255505 (3d Cir. June 3, 2021) (unpublished): OPINION** SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. *1 Plaintiffs William Cost, Sr. and William Cost, Jr. brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania state…

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

Miller v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2021 WL 42(11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2021) (unpublished): Attorneys Daniel Zemel and Brian Giles appeal from the district court’s order imposing sanctions on them, arising out of their representation of plaintiff Deondra Miller in…

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

Paavola v. Hope Vill., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168241, 2021 WL 4033101 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2021): MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Lana Paavola, individually and on behalf of the estate of her late husband Joel D. Paavola and his beneficiaries, sued…

Rule 11 Sanctions Should Be Allocated Among Persons Responsible — Not Imposed Lightly As Misapplication Can Chill Counsel’s Enthusiasm and Stifle Creativity in Pursuing Novel Factual Or Legal Theories — Disgorgement of Fees into Court — Focus of Improper Purpose Inquiry Is On Objective Facts Supporting Inference Goal Was Harassment Or Unnecessary Delay — While Rule 11 Is Not Intended to Be Compensatory in First Instance, Effective Deterrence May Require Compensation of Victim — Rule 37 Sanctions: Where Case Has Been Dismissed after Violation, Best Sanction Is Award of Fees and Expenses Incurred in Bringing Motions to Compel and for Sanctions Against Client and Counsel Jointly

Upchurch v. O’Brien, 2021 WL 3617098 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 16, 2021): Before the court are three motions for sanctions filed against plaintiff Timothy Upchurch and his attorney, Timothy Alan Provis. (Dkt. #36, 67, 75.) Although the case has been …

Rule 37(c) Preclusion for 26(a)(1) Non-Disclosure Requires Harm to Opponent, And Harm Doesn’t Require Preclusion — Preclusion Factors (1st Cir.) — “Substantially Justified” And “Harmless[ness]” Exceptions — Late Disclosure Can Be Harmless Even If It Follows Filing of Summary Judgment Motion

Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt v. Ingersoll-Rand De P.R., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16146 (1st Cir. May 28, 2021): Trane Puerto Rico, LLC and its parent company, Ingersoll-Rand de Puerto Rico, Inc. (collectively “Trane”) terminated the employment of Giorgio Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt (“Zampierollo”) after thirty-three years…

Circuit Split: District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Modify Protective Order after Rule 41(a)(1) Dismissal (11th Cir. (2-1))— Not a “Collateral Matter” over Which Jurisdiction Remains (Like Costs, Fees, Contempt Sanctions, Rule 11 Sanctions, and Motions to Confirm Arbitral Awards) — Stipulated Protective Order Is an Enforceable Contract, Subject to Post-Dismissal Lawsuit — Strong Dissenting Opinion

Absolute Activist Value Master Fund v. Devine, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16110 (11th Cir. May 28, 2021): Susan Devine, who was sued for her alleged involvement in money laundering and market manipulation schemes, appeals the District Court’s denial of her…

“The purpose of a Rule 11 sanction is to punish ‘unprofessional conduct in litigation'” — Bankruptcy: Automatic Stay Does Not Preclude Imposition of Contempt Sanctions: “‘[a] litigant should not be allowed to delay the imposition of sanctions indefinitely by the expedient of declaring bankruptcy'”

Kupperstein v. Schall (In re Kupperstein), 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11944 (1st Cir. April 22, 2021): BACKGROUND The short story, sticking with only what is relevant here, is that years ago, Donald C. Kupperstein, with the help of his comrade, …

Rule 11 Sanctions: Attorney May Not Rely on Clients When Objectively Unreasonable — Cannot Rely on Discovery to Bring Claims with No Factual Basis — Specific Identification Requirement — $10,000 Deterrent Penalty OK — Factors from Adv. Comm. Note Adopted

Goldman v. Barrett, 825 Fed. Appx. 35 (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished): [*36] SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert M. Goldman…

Rule 37 Sanctions for Impeding, Delaying, Frustrating Deposition — Intricacies of Remote Deposition Protocols and 30(b)(6) Witnesses Using Notes — No Duty to ID Which 30(b)(6) Topic a Question Relates to — When a Protective Order Is a R. 37(b) Order — Sanctions Must Be Proportional to Offense — Motion to Strike = Objection — When Inherent Power Sanctions for Deposition Misconduct Are Apt

John Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87596, 2021 WL 1840649 (D.D.C. May 7, 2021): *1 At his deposition, the corporate representative of defendant Exxon Mobil Oil of Indonesia (“EMOI”) refused to answer most of …

Rule 37 Sanctions: Second Circuit Factors — Exclusion of Witness Not Disclosed Per 26(a) Apt — “Interviewing a Witness Late in the Process Does Not Provide Cover for a Revised Disclosure” — Reconsideration Factors

Irish v. Tropical Emerald Llc & Rainbow United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87946 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021): After a series of failed attempts to follow this Court’s rules, including those on page limitations, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration …

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Mandatory Damages Disclosure Does Not Extend to Disgorgement Because It Is An Equitable, And Not A Damages, Remedy

Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. L.D. Drilling, Inc., 405 F. Supp. 3d 981 (D. Kan. 2019): A number of the motions are before the court in the present dispute over the effects of the migration of natural gas which plaintiff…

Supreme Court — Personal Jurisdiction — Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Require A Causal Relationship Between The Defendant’s In-State Activity And The Litigation — “Some Relationships Will Support Jurisdiction Without A Causal Showing”

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 2021 WL 1132515 (U.S. March 25, 2021): *3 In each of these two cases, a state court held that it had jurisdiction over Ford Motor Company in a products-liability suit stemming…

One Score

March 17, 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Firm

Rule 37 Sanctions OK As Basis for Motion in Limine — Damages Evidence Excluded for 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Disclosure Violation — Whether A Statement Is Puffery Or A Representation of Fact Is A Question of Law — Attorney’s Fees Award Can Be Reduced for Block Billing

Grouse River Outfitters, Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., 2021 WL 754839 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2021) (unpublished):MEMORANDUM** *1 Grouse River Outfitters, Ltd. (“Grouse River”) appeals various decisions of the district court. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we…

Party May Intentionally Breach Contract to Advance a Legitimate Economic Self-Interest And Still Rely on Contractual Limitation of Liability Provision — Provision Avoidable Only by Intentional Misconduct Unrelated to Any Legitimate Economic Self-Interest (NY Law)

Electron Trading, LLC v Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 157 A.D.3d 579 (1st Dept. 2018): [*579] [**634] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered May 24, 2017, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs,…

Alford Plea Lacks the Probative Value of Conventional Guilty Plea — Generally Insufficient, Alone, to Support Summary Judgment in Civil Action — May Be Admissible — Section 1292(b): Circuit Split May Be Insufficient to Show Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion Warranting Interlocutory Appeal

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal (“Motion”). (Dkt. 51.) The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and…

Inherent Power & Rule 37 Sanctions: Permissive Adverse Inference Is “Among the Most Restrained in [the Court’s] Arsenal,” As It Could Order Matters Deemed Admitted – 11th Circuit Gives Overly Broad Reading of Rule 26(a)(1) in Dicta (At Odds with Advisory Committee Note)

Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. Co., 969 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2020): On Christmas Eve, 2014, Joyce Higgs tripped over a bucket in a dining area of the cruise ship Costa Luminosa and sustained serious injuries to her left shoulder. …

Inherent Power And Rule 37 Sanctions: No Dismissal for Perjury During Discovery On Non-Pivotal Issues Exposed on Cross – While Lack of Prejudice Not Dispositive, Judge May Properly Consider Effect of Misconduct on the Litigation

Patrick v. City of Chicago, 2020 WL 5362160 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2020): *1 Deon Patrick was convicted of double murder in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison. The convictions were vacated in 2014 and Patrick was released. The …

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

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

Rule 11 Sanctions: Attorney May Not Rely on Clients When Objectively Unreasonable — Cannot Rely on Discovery to Bring Claims with No Factual Basis — Specific Identification Requirement — $10,000 Deterrent Penalty OK — Factors from Adv. Comm. Note Adopted

Rule 37 Sanctions: Second Circuit Factors — Exclusion of Witness Not Disclosed Per 26(a) Apt — “Interviewing a Witness Late in the Process Does Not Provide Cover for a Revised Disclosure” — Reconsideration Factors

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Mandatory Damages Disclosure Does Not Extend to Disgorgement Because It Is An Equitable, And Not A Damages, Remedy

Supreme Court — Personal Jurisdiction — Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Require A Causal Relationship Between The Defendant’s In-State Activity And The Litigation — “Some Relationships Will Support Jurisdiction Without A Causal Showing”

One Score

Rule 37 Sanctions OK As Basis for Motion in Limine — Damages Evidence Excluded for 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Disclosure Violation — Whether A Statement Is Puffery Or A Representation of Fact Is A Question of Law — Attorney’s Fees Award Can Be Reduced for Block Billing

Party May Intentionally Breach Contract to Advance a Legitimate Economic Self-Interest And Still Rely on Contractual Limitation of Liability Provision — Provision Avoidable Only by Intentional Misconduct Unrelated to Any Legitimate Economic Self-Interest (NY Law)

Inherent Power & Rule 37 Sanctions: Permissive Adverse Inference Is “Among the Most Restrained in [the Court’s] Arsenal,” As It Could Order Matters Deemed Admitted – 11th Circuit Gives Overly Broad Reading of Rule 26(a)(1) in Dicta (At Odds with Advisory Committee Note)

Inherent Power And Rule 37 Sanctions: No Dismissal for Perjury During Discovery On Non-Pivotal Issues Exposed on Cross – While Lack of Prejudice Not Dispositive, Judge May Properly Consider Effect of Misconduct on the Litigation

Recent Articles

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

Rule 11 Sanctions: Attorney May Not Rely on Clients When Objectively Unreasonable — Cannot Rely on Discovery to Bring Claims with No Factual Basis — Specific Identification Requirement — $10,000 Deterrent Penalty OK — Factors from Adv. Comm. Note Adopted

Archives

New York Office