rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby irish017 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:47 pm

Does the fact that a case is in discovery phase trigger rule 37 sanctions alone? Or is Rule 11 still present? Or a bit of both?

skeptrix
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:43 am

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby skeptrix » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:58 pm

Rule 11 sanctions do not apply to discovery (11(d)), if that's what you're asking. There's a separate rule for discovery sanctions, which we haven't gone over yet. It could be rule 37, but I'm really not sure.

User avatar
RUQRU
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:32 pm

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby RUQRU » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:03 pm

Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

User avatar
savagedm
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:51 am

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby savagedm » Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:05 pm

skeptrix wrote:Rule 11 sanctions do not apply to discovery (11(d)), if that's what you're asking. There's a separate rule for discovery sanctions, which we haven't gone over yet. It could be rule 37, but I'm really not sure.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby kalvano » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:39 pm

Rule 11 only applies to pleadings and answers. You must certify that you're not doing stuff just to fuck around and waste time.

Rule 37 is for discovery and being a recalcitrant dick and pissing off the court.

nyknicks
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:47 pm

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby nyknicks » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:27 pm

Rule 26g provide mandatory sanctions during discovery, whereas 37 is up to court's discretion. As said above, Rule 11 doesn't apply to discovery.

irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby irish017 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:28 pm

kalvano wrote:Rule 11 only applies to pleadings and answers. You must certify that you're not doing stuff just to fuck around and waste time.

Rule 37 is for discovery and being a recalcitrant dick and pissing off the court.

Right.

Example:

A court sanctions a party under Rule 11. However, all of the violations that are alleging and what the party was sanctioned for occurred in Discovery. The party motions to dismiss the sanctions. Would they be dismissed because they could only be brought under Rule 37 because Rule 37 was the proper Rule for sanctioning?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby kalvano » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:30 pm

irish017 wrote:
kalvano wrote:Rule 11 only applies to pleadings and answers. You must certify that you're not doing stuff just to fuck around and waste time.

Rule 37 is for discovery and being a recalcitrant dick and pissing off the court.

Right.

Example:

A court sanctions a party under Rule 11. However, all of the violations that are alleging and what the party was sanctioned for occurred in Discovery. The party motions to dismiss the sanctions. Would they be dismissed because they could only be brought under Rule 37 because Rule 37 was the proper Rule for sanctioning?



A court wouldn't sanction a party under Rule 11 once they are on to discovery. Only under Rule 37.

irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby irish017 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:33 pm

kalvano wrote:
irish017 wrote:
kalvano wrote:Rule 11 only applies to pleadings and answers. You must certify that you're not doing stuff just to fuck around and waste time.

Rule 37 is for discovery and being a recalcitrant dick and pissing off the court.

Right.

Example:

A court sanctions a party under Rule 11. However, all of the violations that are alleging and what the party was sanctioned for occurred in Discovery. The party motions to dismiss the sanctions. Would they be dismissed because they could only be brought under Rule 37 because Rule 37 was the proper Rule for sanctioning?



A court wouldn't sanction a party under Rule 11 once they are on to discovery. Only under Rule 37.

omg I got an A in civ pro.


/thread.




But yeah, thanks for getting me some sleep tonight.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby kalvano » Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:41 pm

Actually, I should amend that. A court might sanction someone in Rule 11 if they get all the way through discovery and discover that everything was total bullshit, made up just to be a dick. But I doubt it would ever get that far. Typically, if you're talking trying to compel someone to discover something or punish them for not being forthcoming, it's Rule 37 and the Coca-Cola Bottling test.

irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby irish017 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:15 am

what if interrogatories were mentioned? then just rule 11?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby kalvano » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:21 am

irish017 wrote:what if interrogatories were mentioned? then just rule 11?



Interrogatories fall under what - discovery or stating / answering the claim?

irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby irish017 » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:24 am

Interrogatories fall under discovery.

so rule 37 right?


sooooo done with cp. haha

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby DoubleChecks » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:26 am

kalvano wrote:
irish017 wrote:what if interrogatories were mentioned? then just rule 11?



Interrogatories fall under what - discovery or stating / answering the claim?


interrogatories means you're already into discovery usually

R11 can apply post-discovery if they made up a bunch of allegations that they not only did not have evidence to support, but even after going through discovery, apparently were still a load of crock

it isnt sanctioning FOR discovery though, still related to what was pled and pre-filing inquiry

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)

Postby kalvano » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:35 am

irish017 wrote:Interrogatories fall under discovery.

so rule 37 right?



That would be correct.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Butterscotch&Taffy, LawHammer, routinedysfunction, TheSpanishMain and 25 guests