Hol' Dir diese Lernkarten, lerne & bestehe Prüfungen. Kostenlos! Auch auf iPhone/Android!

The psychologist wanted his tapes back from his old employer.  D filed Rule11(c)(2) sanctions and 28 USCA 1927 sanctions b/c P's attny did not reasonably investigate facts or law.

H - Rule 11 sanctions ok, 1927 not ok b/c no bad faith.  Also, sanctions too severe, revisit.

Notes:

28 U.S.C.A. sec 1927 also allows sanctions for being vexatious, i.e. bad faith.

Rule 11 was relaxed in an amendment, b/c lawyers became afraid of dropping weak claims as cases went on lest they be sanctioned.

Can get sanctioned for no investigation even if claim ends up appropriate - discourages lazy lawyering.

Remember Safe Harbor.

Woman injured by drugs as a girl.  She'd had 3 docs, one was now dead.  Lawyers sued the pharma companies used by the 2 living docs, and also Upjohn, assuming because it had a big market share that it was likely that the third doc used Upjohn (statute of limitations was running).  Sanctioned.

H - no likelihood add'l med records would be found, shouldn't have included Upjohn.

Sherman says - should've hired a P.I. to show they did all they could to find those records.

P said he was fired due to national origin.  After D's witnesses contradicted that notion, trial ct found Rule 11 violation.

H - appeals ct said attny not in violation, information in particular control of D, who wasn't going to share with P pre-trial.

Uy v. Bronx Hospital
Albright v. Upjohn
Zuk