The U.S. Supreme Court Limits Sanctions to Compensation, Not Punishment

by Moore & Van Allen PLLC
Contact

It is not every day the U.S. Supreme Court pays attention to matters that affect the practice of discovery, but that day came with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct 1178 (April 18, 2017).  Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Kagan explained that when a court exercises its inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct by ordering a party to pay the other side’s legal fees, the award is limited to the fees that would not have been incurred but for the sanctioned party’s conduct.

The Court’s decision provides useful guidance, but leaves open interesting questions that litigants and district courts will be wrestling with for years to come.

The Facts

The underlying matter is a products-liability case in which the Haegers sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company after their motorhome swerved off the road and flipped after one of its tires blew out.  The Haegers alleged that Goodyear’s G 159 tire was not designed to withstand conditions experienced when used on a motorhome at highway speed levels.  Over the course of several years, the Heagers repeatedly requested internal test results for the G 159 tire and Goodyear repeatedly claimed it had produced “all testing data”.  The Haegers pursued the issue to the point that the District Court “became exasperated with Plaintiff’s apparently unsubstantiated claims that additional information must exist.”

Like most cases, the parties settled for an undisclosed amount on the eve of trial.  And that is the end of the story. . . . Except it wasn’t.

Almost a year later, the Haegers’ lawyer was reading a newspaper when he discovered that in another case involving the same tire, Goodyear disclosed a set of test results never produced to the Heagers.  The results were incriminating; showing that the G 159 became unusually hot at speeds above 55 miles per hour.   

District Court

Though the case had settled, the Haegers moved for sanctions.  They claimed that Goodyear committed discovery fraud and that the settlement was smaller than it otherwise would have been if Goodyear had produced the test results as they were required to do. 

In its 66 page sanctions order, the Arizona District Court noted 25 times Goodyear’s lawyers or designee made false or misleading statements. See Haeger v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. et al., Order, No. CV-05-02024 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2012). The District Court concluded Goodyear engaged in a course of repeated and deliberate bad-faith conduct over several years, which frustrated resolution of the case on the merits. 

The District Court then needed to decide what sanctions were appropriate to address Goodyear’s misconduct at this late stage in the proceeding.  Its options were limited: 

  • Rule 11 is designed as a deterrent for improper pleadings, motions, and other documents or other misrepresentations to the court and it is unavailable after a final judgment;
  • Rule 26(g) is limited to abuses which stem from initial and pretrial disclosures or formal written discovery;
  • Rule 30(d) addresses sanctionable conduct during a deposition;
  • Rule 37 permits sanctions for violations that occur during disclosure or for the failure to preserve or cooperate during discovery; and
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1927 permits the imposition of sanctions against a lawyer, but not a litigant, who engages in dilatory litigation tactics.

The District Court concluded that because the case had settled, no statute or rule permitted it to impose sanctions.  Instead, the District Court determined it could use its “inherent powers” to sanction Goodyear, awarding the Haegers $2.7 million in legal fees and costs.  This amount represented the full value of the attorney’s fees incurred in the litigation “since the moment, early in the litigation, when Goodyear made its first dishonest discovery response.”

The District Court noted that fees awarded must be causally connected to misconduct, but it found an exception where, as in this case, the misconduct occurred early on and rose to a “truly egregious level.”  Perhaps expecting its decision may be overturned, the District Court also crafted an alternative sanction applicable if it was reversed, which reduced the award to $2 million for fees incurred that were causally linked to the misconduct.

The Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s award agreeing that a court’s inherent authority permitted it to sanction a litigant for an amount it reasonably believed the Haegers incurred “during the time” Goodyear acted in bad faith.

Judge Watford dissented arguing the sanction was punitive, which required protections available to criminal defendants, rather than compensatory, which requires only adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. He argued that the sanction was not compensatory because there was not a causal connection between the misconduct and the sanction amount.

Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Judge Watford and reversed the Ninth Circuit.  The Supreme Court, held that a sanction “order is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct—or put another way, to the fees that party would not have incurred but for the bad faith.”  The Court rejected a temporal test that would allow a Court to reach a sanction amount equal to all fees incurred “during the time when [Goodyear was] acting in bad faith”.

The Court explained that discovery sanction “must be compensatory rather than punitive. . . . The fee award may go no further, than to redress wronged parties for injuries sustained.”  This but for test is not eliminated even if the misconduct rose to a “truly egregious level”. 

But there are instances where the but for test would permit a court to shift all of a party’s fees, from either the start or some midpoint of a suit.  The Court gave several examples, including where a plaintiff initiates suit in bad faith, where a defendant’s entire course of conduct is unethical and part of a scheme to defeat a valid claim, or where a party fails to disclose evidence fatal to its position – essentially all cases where the litigation should have never started or would have ceased immediately if the sanctionable party behaved appropriately. 

The Heagers did not show that they had this type of case.  They did not demonstrate that the case would have settled as soon as Goodyear divulged the heat-test results.  Instead, the Supreme Court agreed with Judge Watford’s dissent that Goodyear would still have had a colorable defense by arguing that the debris in the road was the cause for the blow out, not a defective tire. 

Takeaways

While it is helpful that the Supreme Court addressed an important discovery issue – how can a court sanction recalcitrant defendants that refuse to meet their discovery obligations – it is important to not extend it too far.  Some commentators have warned that the failure to punish bad actors will result in egregious discovery abuses.  This is unlikely given counsel’s duty to the court, the risks a party runs of an adverse ruling while the case is pending, and the likelihood of expensive follow on litigation.

The better way to view this decision is that it provides some level of certainty for discovery sanctions.  No discovery process is perfect. And in cases where those mistakes warrant sanctions, it is instructive to know that those sanctions will be tied to the injury caused to the opposing party as opposed to a punitive figure untethered to the amounts at issue in the case or the damages suffered by the parties.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Moore & Van Allen PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Moore & Van Allen PLLC
Contact
more
less

Moore & Van Allen PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.