Barnett v. Garrigan

N.D. California

Barnett v. Garrigan

DecidedJanuary 20, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-02585

StatusUnknown

This text of Barnett v. Garrigan (Barnett v. Garrigan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett v. Garrigan, (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW BARNETT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02585-VC

Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON v. SANCTIONS

BERNARD GARRIGAN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 100, 112 Defendants.

Pursuant to the Court’s inherent power, Andrew Barnett is sanctioned for his conduct during the deposition of Christine Pfeffer. Under its inherent power, a court may “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991); see Claypole v. County of Monterey, 2016 WL 145557, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016). Before imposing such a sanction, a court must “specifically find[] bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001). And, to comport with the requirements of due process, the sanctioned party must have notice and the opportunity to respond. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 50. Sanctions are appropriate here. Some of Barnett’s interruptions during the deposition were disruptive but not obviously in bad faith. However, two incidents escalated to personal attacks on the defendants and defendants’ counsel. This included calling counsel a liar and making inappropriate comments about the defendant’s physical appearance. The Court finds that these comments were made in bad faith. Additionally, the requirements of due process have been satisfied: Barnett had notice of the challenged misconduct and the allegation of bad faith and exercised his opportunity to respond. Therefore, to deter future misconduct and to provide a remedy to the defendant and defendants’ counsel—who bore the brunt of Barnett’s comments—Barnett is ordered to transmit $600 to defense counsel Jason Balogh ($400 of which is to compensate Kyla Nored and $200 of which is to compensate Balogh) by Wednesday, January 26, 2022. Also by January 26, Barnett shall submit a declaration to the Court confirming his compliance with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 20, 2022 Lo. VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW BARNETT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02585-VC

Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON v. SANCTIONS

BERNARD GARRIGAN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 100, 112 Defendants.

Pursuant to the Court’s inherent power, Andrew Barnett is sanctioned for his conduct during the deposition of Christine Pfeffer. Under its inherent power, a court may “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991); see Claypole v. County of Monterey, 2016 WL 145557, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016). Before imposing such a sanction, a court must “specifically find[] bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001). And, to comport with the requirements of due process, the sanctioned party must have notice and the opportunity to respond. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 50. Sanctions are appropriate here. Some of Barnett’s interruptions during the deposition were disruptive but not obviously in bad faith. However, two incidents escalated to personal attacks on the defendants and defendants’ counsel. This included calling counsel a liar and making inappropriate comments about the defendant’s physical appearance. The Court finds that these comments were made in bad faith. Additionally, the requirements of due process have been satisfied: Barnett had notice of the challenged misconduct and the allegation of bad faith and exercised his opportunity to respond. Therefore, to deter future misconduct and to provide a remedy to the defendant and defendants’ counsel—who bore the brunt of Barnett’s comments—Barnett is ordered to transmit $600 to defense counsel Jason Balogh ($400 of which is to compensate Kyla Nored and $200 of which is to compensate Balogh) by Wednesday, January 26, 2022. Also by January 26, Barnett shall submit a declaration to the Court confirming his compliance with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 20, 2022 Lo. VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barnett v. Garrigan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-garrigan-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack