Judges should tailor civil sanctions to harm caused, ABA argues in SCOTUS discovery-abuse case
An ABA amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court says civil sanctions imposed by federal judges under their inherent powers to punish bad-faith litigation conduct should generally be tailored to the harm caused.
The ABA filed the brief (PDF) on Monday, according to an ABA press release. The brief says the sanction should be limited to expenses caused by the misconduct in cases involving “non-contumacious conduct,” unless the judge grants the parties heightened due process protections.
Proportionality guards against arbitrary punishment, “which is a risk when a court functions as accuser, prosecutor and sentencer,” the ABA brief says.
The ABA filed the brief in a case challenging a $2.7 million sanction for discovery misconduct imposed against Goodyear Tire & Rubber and two lawyers representing the tire maker. A federal judge in Arizona had imposed the sanction for failure to disclose tire test results during discovery, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanction last year.
The ABA brief says the 9th Circuit decision should be reversed because the appeals court found there was no need to try to determine what expenses were directly caused by the litigation misconduct.
The case is Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger.
