Complex Lit Blog - Joseph Hage Aaronson

Fourfold Purpose of Rule 37 Sanctions

Sensiva Health, L.L.C. v. Universal Meditech, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223074, *13, 2022 WL 17576345, *5 (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2022) (Report and Recommendation), modified and adopted (sanction affirmed), Sensiva Health, L.L.C. v. Universal Meditech, Inc., ...

Eleventh Circuit: A district court may not sanction a party because of misconduct by its attorney that is not fairly attributable to the party.

Carter v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244, 2023 WL 309034 (11th Cir. Jan. 19, 2023) ...

Carter v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244, 2023 WL 309034 (11th Cir. Jan. 19, 2023) (per curiam): *1 Victoria Carter sued Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, after she slipped and fell in a puddle on the…

An Unaffiliated Third Party Has No Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant — Compliance with Law Is a Valid Defense to a Spoliation Motion

Brown v. Nolen, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35917 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished): JUDGMENT This petition for review was considered on the record from the National Transportation Safety Board and on the briefs and or ...

Brown v. Nolen, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35917 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished): JUDGMENT This petition for review was considered on the record from the National Transportation Safety Board and on the briefs and oral argument of the parties.…

$500 Sanction Under Rule 16(f)(1) Does Not Require Full Criminal Contempt Procedures, Goodyear Notwithstanding — Due Process Failure If Sanctions Imposed For Reasons Not Set Forth in Order to Show Cause — Rule 16(f) Does Not Authorize Sanctions for Lack of Candor, Unlike Rule 11

Banks v. Whambo! Enter., LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31400, 2022 WL 16918023 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished) Key Takeaways: “Taibi’s reliance on

Banks v. Whambo! Enter., LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31400, 2022 WL 16918023 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished) Key Takeaways: “Taibi’s reliance on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017), is misplaced. …

Even If Parties Share a Discovery Vendor, the Producing Party Bears the Burden of Ensuring That Its Directions to the Vendor Are Complete And Accurate — The Producing Party Must Certify Its Responses and Production under Rule 26(g)

Am. Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Blasingim, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226203 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2022): Key Takeaways Rule 26(g)(1) requires, among other things, that every discovery response or objection "must be signe ...

Am. Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Blasingim, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226203 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2022): Key Takeaways Rule 26(g)(1) requires, among other things, that every discovery response or objection “must be signed by at least one attorney of record.” …

Rule 37 sanctions must flow from the discovery violation

ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34765, 2022 WL 17725736 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022): Key Takeaway: “The district court’s award inappropriately includes in the sanction the timely disclosed RFID tags, for which there was no discovery violation and no established harm to ADASA. Cf.

ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34765, 2022 WL 17725736 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022): Key Takeaway: “The district court’s award inappropriately includes in the sanction the timely disclosed RFID tags, for which there was no …

The Gibson Dunn Sanctions Case — Key Takeaways and Full Opinion

In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023): "The organization has 'a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)( ...

In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023): “The organization has ‘a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to …

§ 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

Powell v. Healy, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25776, 2022 WL 4181717 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2022) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellee Charlie A. Powell, a Tennessee hip hop artist manager, filed a breach of contract action in Tennessee state court against Defendant ...

Powell v. Healy, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25776, 2022 WL 4181717 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2022) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellee Charlie A. Powell, a Tennessee hip hop artist manager, filed a breach of contract action in Tennessee state…

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

R and C Oilfield Servs., LLC v. Am. Wind Transport Group LLC, 45 F.4th 655 (3d Cir. 2022): R and C Oilfield Services LLC (“R&C”) was ordered to arbitrate its dispute with American Wind Transport LLC and, seventeen months later, told the District Court that it had no plans to do so. As a result, the District Cou ...

R and C Oilfield Servs., LLC v. Am. Wind Transport Group LLC, 45 F.4th 655 (3d Cir. 2022): R and C Oilfield Services LLC (“R&C”) was ordered to arbitrate its dispute with American Wind Transport LLC and, seventeen months …

“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

Razvi v. Dallas Fort Worth Int'l Airport, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26058, 2022 WL 4298141 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2022) PER CURIAM:* *1 Meher Razvi appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case and denial of his motion for relief from judgment on the grounds of excusa ...

Razvi v. Dallas Fort Worth Int’l Airport, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26058, 2022 WL 4298141 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2022) PER CURIAM:* *1 Meher Razvi appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case and denial of his motion…

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

Ctr. for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26869, 2022 WL 4462246 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2022) (per curiam) PER CURIAM: *1 Irina Chevaldin ...

Ctr. for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26869, 2022 WL 4462246 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2022) (per curiam) PER CURIAM: *1 Irina Chevaldina, proceeding pro se, appeals following the voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of a…

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

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 641 B.R. 1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022): Plaintiff Orin S. Anderson (“Plaintiff” or “Anderson”) brought this adversary proceeding for himself and as a putative class action to enforce his and the other class members’ bankruptcy discharge under

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 641 B.R. 1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022): Plaintiff Orin S. Anderson (“Plaintiff” or “Anderson”) brought this adversary proceeding for himself and as a putative class action to enforce his and the other …

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 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, 20 ...

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**

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 the district court. On appeal, the attorneys argue that the district court abused its discretion in sanction ...

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 ...

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 voluntarily dismissed on the merits, the court retains jurisdiction to consider these motions. The first sanctions ...

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 ...

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 o ...

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Fourfold Purpose of Rule 37 Sanctions

Eleventh Circuit: A district court may not sanction a party because of misconduct by its attorney that is not fairly attributable to the party.

An Unaffiliated Third Party Has No Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant — Compliance with Law Is a Valid Defense to a Spoliation Motion

$500 Sanction Under Rule 16(f)(1) Does Not Require Full Criminal Contempt Procedures, Goodyear Notwithstanding — Due Process Failure If Sanctions Imposed For Reasons Not Set Forth in Order to Show Cause — Rule 16(f) Does Not Authorize Sanctions for Lack of Candor, Unlike Rule 11

Even If Parties Share a Discovery Vendor, the Producing Party Bears the Burden of Ensuring That Its Directions to the Vendor Are Complete And Accurate — The Producing Party Must Certify Its Responses and Production under Rule 26(g)

Rule 37 sanctions must flow from the discovery violation

The Gibson Dunn Sanctions Case — Key Takeaways and Full Opinion

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

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(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

Recent Posts

Matter of First Impression vs. Baseless Position (Good Quote)

The Answer to a Question of First Impression Is Rarely “Plain”

Recklessness Sufficient for § 1927 Sanctions in 9th Circuit (Circuit Split) — Mere Delay of 19 Days in Producing Prior Settlement Agreement Among the Parties “Unreasonably Lengthened the Proceedings” — Sound Dissent

Archives

New York Office