Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Oh Boy.

Judge Brown Sanctions Order 2

You know my favorite case?

The one that makes writing this blog so, so easy?

The one I've written about here and here?

Well I have no idea what the underlying issue is, since Magistrate Judge Brown sealed the relevant pleadings, but this Order doesn't seem too good:
This matter came before this Court on Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Emergency Motion for Protective Order (D.E. 386), filed November 6, 2009. The motion sets forth serious allegations and accusations, and seeks significant relief. This motion resulted in numerous other filings and at least one emergency hearing. Responses were filed along with hundreds of pages of exhibits, including declarations and depositions transcripts. No reply was ever filed.

The motion, made without any evidence nor supporting documentation, sought an evidentiary hearing, and a delay in discovery. While the motion suggests that documentation could be provided if ordered in camera, in the face of substantial evidence contradicting said motion, none was ever provided.

The response of INA is most telling. It not only attaches the exhibits noted, supra, but alleges that plaintiffs had at least some if not all of this information before filing the motion ... allegations never rebutted in a reply. It further seeks sanctions under FRCP 11, and plaintiffs never respond to same.

The motion has largely become moot at this time, but to the extent it was not completely ruled upon, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The relief sought in said motion, with the exception of the sealing of same, is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs shall have through and including Friday, April 30,2010 to show good cause, in writing, why substantial sanctions should not be imposed under FRCP 11 for the filing of this motion, and further why the Court should not, sua sponte, award said sanctions under either the inherent power of the court or 18 U.S.C 9 1927 for vexatiously and unreasonably multiplying the proceedings herein. Said filing shall be limited to a maximum of eight (8) pages.
I don't know, given the history here, what do you think might happen?

4 comments:

  1. I want tickets to the sanctions hearing!

    ReplyDelete
  2. CinCO DE SHUMIEMay 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM

    Second- warning- the Cinco De Shumie celebration will be under surveillance from certain law firms who are quite concerned on the effect Shumie Time has on billable hours. Be advised- showing up early tomorrow could have negative consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  3. calling the shumie!

    ReplyDelete