Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc.

Background

Jennifer S. Fischman brought employment discrimination and retaliation claims against her former employer, Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc., Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corporation, and several individual defendants. Defendants sought sanctions under Rules 11 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under the court’s inherent authority. They argued that Fischman had produced a forged handwritten note during discovery and then testified falsely about the note during her deposition. Fischman maintained that the note was authentic and that sanctions were unwarranted.

Rules 11 and 37

The court rejected the request under Rule 11 because that rule applies to a signed pleading, motion, or other paper filed with the court. Fischman did not attach the note to her complaint, and Defendants were the first to submit it to the court. The court also rejected Rule 37(b)(2)(A) because that provision allows sanctions only when a party violates a prior court order, and Defendants did not claim that Fischman had violated one.

Inherent Authority and Dismissal

The court explained that it may use its inherent authority to sanction conduct that defrauds the court, but sanctions on that basis require clear and convincing evidence of intentional bad faith. The court considers whether the conduct was intentional, whether it harmed the opposing party, whether it was part of a pattern, whether it was corrected, and whether it is likely to continue.

Dismissal is reserved for extreme situations, such as intentional and repeated lies about issues central to determining the truth. The court denied Defendants’ request for dismissal. At most, Defendants alleged that Fischman fabricated one document and lied about it during her deposition. The court also found that the note was not the central support for Fischman’s case. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding at this time whether the note was forged or whether Fischman lied about it.

Attorney’s Fees and Disposition

Defendants also requested attorney’s fees. The court did not rule on that request immediately. It stated that the request could be stronger if the note were later shown to be a forgery, but that the record should first be developed through summary judgment or trial. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for sanctions was DENIED without prejudice to renewal after resolution of Fischman’s claims on summary judgment or after trial.

The court ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule for summary-judgment and expert-evidence motions within one week and directed the Clerk to terminate the filing associated with the sanctions motion. Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide the underlying employment claims in this opinion.