affirming sanctions where district court’s review of depositions indicated that factual assertions in a motion for summary judgment were incorrect and that counsel had relied on his client’s representations without independently reviewing other deposition testimony
How later courts described this case
- affirming sanctions where district court’s review of depositions indicated that factual assertions in a motion for summary judgment were incorrect and that counsel had relied on his client’s representations without independently reviewing other deposition testimony
- factual pleading error did not rise to level of sanctionable conduct
- “[a]n order imposing sanctions is a non-final order”
- sanctions appropriate where facts asserted in response to motion for summary judgment were contradicted by litigant’s deposition
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
While concurring in the result reached by the majority, I cannot agree that this case “presents the paradigm of when Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate.” Ante at 265. I do not find this to be a case where an attorney advanced an argument that was directly refuted by clear, objectively verifiable facts, but rather a case where an attorney offered a contention concerning his client’s subjective intent that was not clearly supported by his client’s deposition testimony. Given the subjectivity involved in determining in hindsight why a party took a certain course of action, I believe that this appeal presents a fairly close question as to whether the appellant’s argument about Kulovitz’s intent was “well grounded in fact” for purposes of Rule 11. Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that under our very limited scope of review, the district court’s imposition of Rule II sanctions cannot be deemed an abuse of discretion.