Brown v. Trovato
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-09895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown v. Trovato, Magistrate Judge Parker denied Trovato’s sanctions motion because it targeted nonparties and lacked a legal basis.
Richard Trovato’s sanctions motion was denied; the nonparties he sought to sanction, along with Marissa Brown and her counsel, were not sanctioned by this order.
What happened
In Brown v. Trovato, Richard Trovato asked the court to sanction Dennis Walsh, Patrick Sweeney, and other current or former New York Police Department employees. He alleged that they improperly accessed and shared sealed police records. Marissa Brown opposed the motion, calling it frivolous and unwarranted.
The court ruled that the sanctions laws Trovato relied on did not authorize sanctions against the nonparties he identified. The court also said the motion did not involve a discovery violation and that parties may collect information from nonparties for use in their cases if they provide the materials to the opposing side. It found no basis to sanction Brown or her lawyer for obtaining and producing relevant information.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Trovato’s motion for sanctions. She warned that Trovato could be held responsible for fees and costs connected with frivolous motions under the federal discovery rules.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Trovato · No. 1:23-cv-09895
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 11, 2025
Background
Defendant Richard Trovato filed a motion for sanctions against Dennis Walsh, Patrick Sweeney, described in the opinion as former or current New York Police Department officers or employees, and any other former or current department officer or employee who allegedly helped violate New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50, 160.55, and 160.59 by improperly accessing and disseminating sealed police records related to Trovato. Plaintiff Marissa Brown opposed the motion and argued that it was frivolous and unwarranted.
Legal standards
The court explained that sanctions may be available under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s inherent power. Section 1927 applies to attorneys or other people authorized to practice before federal courts, not to parties themselves, and requires conduct that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the proceedings. Rule 11 can apply when an attorney, or a represented party responsible for a violation, submits filings for an improper purpose or makes unsupported legal or factual assertions. Sanctions under the court’s inherent power require clear evidence that the claims were entirely without a legal basis and were brought in bad faith. The court also noted that Rule 37 permits sanctions for discovery violations.
Court’s analysis
The court held that Trovato did not satisfy the requirements of Section 1927, Rule 11, or the court’s inherent power because he sought sanctions against nonparties. It further held that the motion did not concern a discovery-rule violation. According to the court, parties may collect information from nonparties for use in their cases as long as they produce the materials to the other side.
The court found no legal basis for sanctioning the individuals identified by Trovato. It also found no basis for sanctioning Brown or her counsel for obtaining and producing information relevant to Brown’s case.
Disposition
The court denied Trovato’s motion for sanctions. It also advised him that he may be held responsible for fees and costs associated with frivolous motions under Rule 37. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Trovato and terminate the motion at ECF No. 86.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.