Federal law affords courts supervising discovery broad discretion when deciding whether to impose sanctions on noncompliant parties or their attorneys. Although it is actually well known that lower courts hold this statutory and inherent power, the frequency of how often it is exercised is less recognized. Within the last two years approximately 130 Rule 371 motions have been granted in the Second Circuit.2 This number vividly illustrates that the potential for a sanctions order in a New York federal court is very real.
As a general rule, the severity of a sanctions order directly corresponds with the severity of a party’s noncompliance. The mildest form of sanctions might require the noncompliant party to reimburse his/her adversary for expenses incurred while battling the discovery abuse(s), i.e., reimbursement for filing a motion to compel. If the court finds monetary sanctions to be insufficient, however, then it may strike portions of the pleadings, prohibit the introduction of evidence on particular points, or require an adverse inference instruction. Of course, the harshest sanctions reserved for the most extreme cases are dismissal of the action for noncompliant plaintiffs or an entry of default for disobedient defendants.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
