Page 1 of 1
rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:47 pm
by irish017
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?
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:58 pm
by skeptrix
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.
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:03 pm
by RUQRU
Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:05 pm
by savagedm
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.
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:39 pm
by kalvano
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.
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:27 pm
by nyknicks
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.
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:28 pm
by irish017
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?
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:30 pm
by kalvano
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.
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:33 pm
by irish017
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.
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:41 pm
by kalvano
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.
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:15 am
by irish017
what if interrogatories were mentioned? then just rule 11?
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:21 am
by kalvano
irish017 wrote:what if interrogatories were mentioned? then just rule 11?
Interrogatories fall under what - discovery or stating / answering the claim?
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:24 am
by irish017
Interrogatories fall under discovery.
so rule 37 right?
sooooo done with cp. haha
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:26 am
by DoubleChecks
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
Re: rule 11 v rule 37 (sanctions)
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:35 am
by kalvano
irish017 wrote:Interrogatories fall under discovery.
so rule 37 right?
That would be correct.