The opinion
| USDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
| ELECTRONICALLY FILED
nn nnn nn nnn nnn nnn □□□ nnn nnn nn nnn nn □□□ XK #:
MARISSA BROWN, DOC —
DATE FILED:_ 1/11/2025
Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
-against- 23-CV-9895 (JGLC) (KHP)
RICHARD TROVATO,
Defendant.
~----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 6, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions against Dennis Walsh and
Patrick Sweeney, former or current New York Police Department (“NYPD”) officers or
employees, and any other former or current NYPD officer or employee who assisted them in
“violating New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50, § 160.55, and § 160.59 by improperly
accessing and disseminating sealed police records related to the Defendant.” (ECF Nos. 86 and
87) On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions
arguing that the motion is frivolous and unwarranted. (ECF Nos. 95 and 96) On November 30,
2024, Defendant filed his Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition arguing, among other things, that the
sanctions are warranted given the severity of the misconduct. (ECF No. 97)
A Court may impose sanctions against a party and its attorneys pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1927, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and its inherent power. It also may
impose sanctions for discovery violations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Under Section 1927, “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any
court of the United States ... who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and
attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Section 1927
is only applicable to attorneys or other persons authorized to practice before the courts and not
against a party. Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 1273 (2d Cir. 1986). Section 1927
sanctions are imposed only “when the attorney's actions are so completely without merit as to
require the conclusion that they must have been undertaken for some improper purpose.”
Johnson v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr., 642 F.3d 121, 125 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
Under Rule 11, a Court may impose sanctions against an attorney who files materials
with the Court that are (1) presented for an improper purpose; (2) contain legal arguments that
are not supported by existing law or that are frivolous; (3) contain factual contentions that have
not been investigated or are not supported; or (4) contain denials that are not well-supported.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)-(4) and (c). Rule 11 sanctions may also be imposed against a represented
party when the party “is responsible for the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1); see Braun ex rel.
Advanced Battery Techs., Inc. v. Zhiguo Fu, 2015 WL 4389893, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2015).
Finally, a Court may impose sanctions against a party and its attorneys pursuant to its
inherent power. To impose sanctions, a Court must find that there is clear evidence that “(1)
the offending party’s claims were entirely without color, and (2) the claims were brought in bad
faith–that is, motivated by improper purposes such as harassment or delay.” United States v.
Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 305 F. Supp. 3d 468, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Eismann v. Greene,
204 F.3d 393, 396 (2d Cir. 2000)).
2
Here, Defendant fails to meet the requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s inherent power for the Court to be authorized
to impose sanctions against a party or its attorneys because he is seeking sanctions against non-
parties. And, his motion does not concern any violation of discovery rules — it is permissible
for parties to collect information from non-parties to use in their cases so long as they produce
the materials to the other side.
In sum, there is no legal basis for imposing sanctions on the individuals Defendant asks
this Court to sanction. Nor is there any basis for imposing sanctions on Plaintiff or her counsel
for obtaining and producing information relevant to her case. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion
for Sanctions is hereby DENIED. Defendant also is advised that he may be held responsible for
fees and costs associated with frivolous motions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the Defendant. Further,
the Clerk of Court is also directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 86.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2025
New York, New York wo
Ket: hark H □□□ ahha
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge