Summary
The court granted in part defendants’ motion for sanctions based on plaintiff Deborah Malloy’s discovery misconduct. It awarded defendants attorney’s fees caused solely by Malloy’s false or misleading sworn discovery responses and incorrect information on a Social Security Administration form, assessing the sanctions jointly and severally against Malloy and her attorney. The request to strike pleadings and dismiss the case was denied as moot because the court had already granted summary judgment to defendants.
Holdings
- A federal court may invoke its inherent authority to sanction bad-faith discovery misconduct even when the conduct could also fall within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's sanctioning provisions.
- Attorney's fees may be awarded as a compensatory sanction when a party acts in bad faith and the fees were incurred solely because of the misconduct; the fees may include reasonable fees incurred in preparing and litigating the sanctions motion.
- The request to strike Malloy's pleadings and dismiss the action with prejudice was denied as moot because the court had already granted defendants summary judgment on all remaining claims and terminated the case.
- The attorney's-fee sanctions were properly assessed jointly and severally against Malloy and her attorney, Matthew Ghio, based on the nature of the misconduct and counsel's admitted practice concerning the Social Security Administration authorization form.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court could impose sanctions under its inherent authority for Malloy's repeated false and misleading discovery responses and incorrect information on a Social Security Administration form.
- Whether defendants were entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred solely because of Malloy's misconduct.
- Whether the court should strike Malloy's pleadings and dismiss the action with prejudice as a discovery sanction after summary judgment had been granted on all remaining claims.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)(followed)
- Schlafly v. Eagle F., 970 F.3d 924 (8th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 186 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (2017)(followed)
- Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14CV183 RLW, 2015 WL 1853820, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 2015)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…