Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON ATTORNEY JAMES NEVIN JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . On April 9, 2018, the court ordered attorney James Nevin to show cause why he and his law firm Brayton Purcell LLP should not be sanctioned for a failure to comply with the court's orders. (OSC (Dkt. #755).) During trial on April 2, 2018, Mr. Nevin quoted portions of a report while he was reading a deposition into the record. ( See id. at 2.) Not only did the quoted portion discuss a theory of causation tha
Summary: ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON ATTORNEY JAMES NEVIN JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . On April 9, 2018, the court ordered attorney James Nevin to show cause why he and his law firm Brayton Purcell LLP should not be sanctioned for a failure to comply with the court's orders. (OSC (Dkt. #755).) During trial on April 2, 2018, Mr. Nevin quoted portions of a report while he was reading a deposition into the record. ( See id. at 2.) Not only did the quoted portion discuss a theory of causation that..
More
ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON ATTORNEY JAMES NEVIN
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
On April 9, 2018, the court ordered attorney James Nevin to show cause why he and his law firm Brayton Purcell LLP should not be sanctioned for a failure to comply with the court's orders. (OSC (Dkt. #755).) During trial on April 2, 2018, Mr. Nevin quoted portions of a report while he was reading a deposition into the record. (See id. at 2.) Not only did the quoted portion discuss a theory of causation that the court had excluded in its previous Daubert order (see id. at 2-3; 2/12/18 Order (Dkt. #698) at 30)), but the court had also excluded the report (Exhibit 176) as impermissible hearsay that very morning (see OSC at 3; 4/2/18 Min. Entry (Dkt. #736)). For these reasons, the court ordered Mr. Nevin to explain why his behavior did not warrant a monetary sanction of $1,000.00 and a written reprimand on the docket. (See OSC at 4.)
Courts have the inherent authority to "manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). This inherent authority includes the ability "to impose sanctions for bad faith, which includes a broad range of willful improper conduct." Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001). Courts can also impose sanctions when a party willfully disobeys a court order. See, e.g., Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Fink, 239 F.3d at 991).
The court appreciates that misunderstandings can occur, especially in a complex trial containing numerous orders. (See Dkt.; Resp. (Dkt. #772) at 1.) However, Mr. Nevin's violation of not one, but two court orders merits a response. The court is particularly concerned about Mr. Nevin's continued insistence that "no order of the [c]ourt was violated" and that the court's order to show cause was "based upon an incorrect recollection." (See Resp. at 1-2.) At trial, Mr. Nevin read the following to the jury: "Quote . . . Some authorities even believe that a single, brief exposure might be sufficient [to cause mesotheliomia] end quote." (4/2/18 Trial Tr. (Dkt. #762) at 873:9-14 (quoting Ex. 176).) Simply put, reading a report that opines on the "every exposure" theory violates the court's order that excluded the "every exposure" theory. Likewise, quoting from an excluded exhibit violates the court's order that excluded the exhibit.1 The court finds that Mr. Nevin's repeated violations and misconduct constitute bad faith.
Accordingly, the court DIRECTS Mr. Nevin to pay $1,000.00 in sanctions within five (5) days of the date of this order. This order will additionally serve as a reportable reprimand of Mr. Nevin and Brayton Purcell LLP.
