Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC

Background

Sanderson moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2), alleging misconduct by Defendants and defense counsel during the litigation and during his employment at Leg Apparel LLC. The opinion states that Sanderson was proceeding without a lawyer, so the court read his filing liberally while still requiring compliance with procedural and substantive rules.

Sanderson identified ten grounds for sanctions: alleged failure to preserve electronic evidence; conduct relating to his examination under Rule 35; conduct during his employment; the contents and distribution of an expert report; an alleged misrepresentation about a defendant’s role at Leg Apparel; failure to cite controlling law in a motion to dismiss; an alleged misstatement of Sanderson’s job title in a summary-judgment motion; alleged misuse of Rule 35 evidence; and statements that Sanderson had called a defendant a “bad wife and mother.”

Rule 11 analysis

Rule 11 applies to a signed pleading, motion, or other paper presented to the court. The court held that the first six grounds could not be understood as involving such a filing and therefore were not covered by Rule 11. The court held that the remaining grounds also failed because Sanderson had not given Defendants the required opportunity to withdraw or correct the challenged filings before presenting the sanctions motion to the court.

The court separately addressed the remaining grounds. It held that the challenge to defense counsel’s failure to cite controlling law was untimely because the court had ruled on that motion more than three years earlier. The court also held that the challenge concerning use of information from Sanderson’s Rule 35 examination was untimely because the court had decided the related motion six months earlier, and that the use of the examination information did not violate Rule 11.

The court held that the alleged misstatement of Sanderson’s job title was also untimely and was not material. Defense counsel had described Sanderson as a “Senior Planner” at Betesh, while Sanderson said his title was “Merchandising Planner.” The court stated that the correct title would have strengthened Defendants’ argument that Sanderson obtained comparable employment after his termination, so the error did not justify sanctions.

The court also rejected the challenge to the statement that Sanderson had called a defendant a “bad wife and mother.” It found that the statement had factual support in an affidavit and trial testimony. According to the court, a disputed factual assertion is not improper under Rule 11 merely because it is disputed when it has factual support.

A footnote addressed Sanderson’s related challenge under Rule 37(e), which concerns sanctions for failing to preserve electronically stored information. The court stated that it had previously explained that Defendants were not required to reproduce discovery already provided to Sanderson. It also stated that reopening discovery years after discovery had closed and after trial would require good cause, which the court did not find.

Inherent authority

The court also construed Sanderson’s motion as asking it to use its inherent authority to impose sanctions for conduct outside Rule 11. That authority requires a finding of bad faith and is reserved for rare circumstances involving conduct that lacks a legal or factual basis and was motivated by an improper purpose.

The court declined to use that authority. It found that some alleged conduct occurred outside the litigation, that some challenged conduct was not improper, and that other allegations were too vague to assess. The court concluded that none of the allegations met the required standard for inherent-authority sanctions.

Defendants’ request for expenses

Defendants asked for reasonable expenses incurred in responding to Sanderson’s sanctions motion under Rule 11(c)(2). The court denied that request. Considering Sanderson’s self-represented status, the court did not find that his motion was sufficiently frivolous, improper, or unsupported to warrant an expense award. It also found no track record of frivolous motions requiring deterrence.

Disposition

The court denied Sanderson’s motion for sanctions. It also denied Defendants’ application for expenses under Rule 11(c)(2), and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 374.