Category: Rule 41 Dismissal

Case Dismissed for Deleting Text Messages

Case Dismissed for Deleting Text Messages

In Jones v. Riot Hospitality Group, LLC 95 F.4th 730 (9th Cir. 2024), the plaintiff’s case was dismissed for her actions in deleting text messages. The reasoning:

Jones contends that the district court erred in finding intent because Kuchta could not confirm that every deletion of a text message was intentional or quantify the intentional deletions. But there was ample circumstantial evidence that Jones intentionally destroyed a significant number of text messages and collaborated with others to do so. As the district court noted, Jones could not explain why messages to other employees at the bar were selectively deleted in 2017 and 2018. With respect to the 2019 and 2020 messages, the court pointed out that “while much of the content of the deleted messages is unknowable,” a screenshot of a 736*736 message sent by a witness to Jones but missing from Jones’ phone in its original form, “shows that Plaintiff deleted at least one message that had a direct bearing on her case.” Jones, 2022 WL 3682031 at *10. Moreover, Jones and one of the witnesses obtained new phones shortly after they were ordered to hand over their devices for imaging. Neither Jones nor the witnesses produced the earlier phones for imaging, effectively preventing discovery of messages deleted from those phones. The court’s conclusion “that [Jones] affirmatively selected certain text messages for deletion while otherwise preserving text messages sent around the same time” is supported by the record. Id.

Second Circuit Affirms Rule 37 Dismissal

Second Circuit Affirms Rule 37 Dismissal

This case, Park v. Kim, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024) was decided in January 2024. The district court had dismissed the case under Rules 37 and 41(b) for willful failure to comply with discovery orders. Worse still, counsel for Park used artificial intelligence to draft the appellate reply brief and cited a case that does not exist.

The reply brief cited only two court decisions. We were unable to locate the one cited as “Matter of Bourguignon v. Coordinated Behavioral Health Servs., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 947 (3d Dep’t 2014).” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 6. Accordingly, on November 20, 2023, we ordered Park to submit a copy of that decision to the Court by November 27, 2023. On November 29, 2023, Attorney Lee filed a Response with the Court explaining that she was “unable to furnish a copy of the decision.” Response to November 20, 2023, Order of the Court, at 1, Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 29, 2023), ECF No. 172 (hereinafter, “Response”). Although Attorney Lee did not expressly indicate as much in her Response, the reason she could not provide a copy of the case is that it does not exist — and indeed, Attorney Lee refers to the case at one point as “this non-existent case.” Id. at 2.

Attorney Lee’s Response states:

I encountered difficulties in locating a relevant case to establish a minimum wage for an injured worker lacking prior year income records for compensation determination…. Believing that applying the minimum wage to in injured worker in such circumstances under workers’ compensation law was uncontroversial, I invested considerable time searching for a case to support this position but was unsuccessful.

…

Consequently, I utilized the ChatGPT service, to which I am a subscribed and paying member, for assistance in case identification. ChatGPT was previously provided reliable information, such as locating sources for finding an antic furniture key. The case mentioned above was suggested by ChatGPT, I wish to clarify that I did not cite any specific reasoning or decision from this case.

Id. at 1-2 (sic).

All counsel that appear before this Court are bound to exercise professional judgment and responsibility, and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among other obligations, Rule 11 provides that by presenting a submission to the court, an attorney “certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances… the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2); see also N.Y. R. Pro. Conduct 3.3(a) (McKinney 2023) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of … law to a tribunal.”). “Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to certify that they have conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed with the court are well grounded in fact, [and] legally tenable.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). “Under Rule 11, a court may sanction an 615*615attorney for, among other things, misrepresenting facts or making frivolous legal arguments.” Muhammad v. Walmart Stores E., L.P., 732 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

At the very least, the duties imposed by Rule 11 require that attorneys read, and thereby confirm the existence and validity of, the legal authorities on which they rely. Indeed, we can think of no other way to ensure that the arguments made based on those authorities are “warranted by existing law,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), or otherwise “legally tenable.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447. As a District Judge of this Circuit recently held when presented with non-existent precedent generated by ChatGPT: “A fake opinion is not `existing law’ and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law. An attempt to persuade a court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system.” Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22CV01461(PKC), 678 F.Supp.3d 443, 460-61 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).

Attorney Lee states that “it is important to recognize that ChatGPT represents a significant technological advancement,” and argues that “[i]t would be prudent for the court to advise legal professionals to exercise caution when utilizing this new technology.” Response at 2. Indeed, several courts have recently proposed or enacted local rules or orders specifically addressing the use of artificial intelligence tools before the court.[3] But such a rule is not necessary to inform a licensed attorney, who is a member of the bar of this Court, that she must ensure that her submissions to the Court are accurate.

Attorney Lee’s submission of a brief relying on non-existent authority reveals that she failed to determine that the argument she made was “legally tenable.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393, 110 S.Ct. 2447. The brief presents a false statement of law to this Court, and it appears that Attorney Lee made no inquiry, much less the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 11 and long-standing precedent, into the validity of the arguments she presented. We 616*616 therefore REFER Attorney Lee to the Court’s Grievance Panel pursuant to Local Rule 46.2 for further investigation, and for consideration of a referral to the Committee on Admissions and Grievances. See 2d Cir. R. 46.2.

Non-compliant Plaintiff Narrowly Escapes Dismissal But Is Sanctioned

The case is Macklin v. Charles Schwab No. DKC 16-3923 (D. Maryland) (January 8, 2019). The plaintiff in the case did not comply with discovery, but did make efforts to remedy the noncompliance when Schwab moved for Rule 37 sanctions. The Court elected not to dismiss the case, but to bar plaintiff from using any late-produced evidence.  The explanation:

Plaintiff acted in bad faith by repeatedly failing to comply with the court’s Orders to provide complete discovery responses. The court’s May 22, 2018 Memorandum Opinion provided Plaintiff with a detailed list of the discovery requests that remained outstanding at that time, and directed Plaintiff to “provide full and complete responses to all the interrogatories and the request for production . . . in a signed writing under oath.” (ECF No. 24, at 6). In response, Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s orders and provided only a meager amount of additional information that hardly qualified as a full and complete response to the outstanding discovery requests. However, it is unlikely that Defendant is substantially prejudiced by Plaintiff’s lack of compliance. While insufficient, Plaintiff’s responses provide Defendant with enough information to begin building a defense. As for the need to deter future noncompliance, it is evident that Plaintiff requires such deterrence based on her continued defiance of the court’s Orders. Lastly, as explained in further detail below, dismissal is not the only sanction that would effectively deter Plaintiff’s potential future noncompliance.

Based on the four factors, sanctions are warranted but dismissal is not the appropriate sanction at this time. The sanction of dismissal is to be used sparingly, and is usually called upon in cases where a party is unresponsive or largely absent. See Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (“[O]nly the most flagrant case, where the party’s noncompliance represents bad faith and callous disregard for the authority of the district court and the Rules, will result in the extreme sanction of dismissal or judgment by default.”); Roman v. ESB, Inc., 550 F.2d 1343, 1349 (4th Cir. 1976) (finding dismissal sanction appropriate where plaintiffs “had failed to respond to interrogatories; failed to respond to an order entered by the district court requiring a response to the interrogatories; and additionally failed to respond upon specific request after the court had denied, without prejudice, a first motion to dismiss”); Malry v. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Sch., No. 11-CV-00361-AW, 2013 WL 812020, at *2 (D.Md. Mar. 3, 2013) (dismissing pro se plaintiff’s employment discrimination complaint pursuant to Rule 37(d) where he failed to respond to interrogatories, produce requested documents, or attend a properly noticed deposition). Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, her correspondence and attachments are construed as an attempt to satisfy the court’s August 21, 2018 Order.[3] Although Plaintiff’s discovery responses remain incomplete, Plaintiff supplemented her prior discovery responses by providing Defendant with further information via e-mail on September 10, 2018. (ECF No. 32-1, at 2). Finally, Plaintiff also provided Defendant with her availability in an attempt to schedule a deposition (id.), but Defendant failed to clarify a preferred deposition date and time in its reply email (ECF No. 32-2, at 2). Because dismissal is reserved for more egregious cases of noncompliance, it is not a suitable sanction at this time in light of Plaintiff’s attempts to comply. Additionally, as directed in the foregoing Order, the parties are instructed to schedule and complete Plaintiff’s deposition.

Although Plaintiff’s attempts to comply shield her case from dismissal, they do not shelter her from the alternative sanctions permitted under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). Specifically applicable here is Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), which provides the court discretion to “prohibit[] the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.” In the event that Plaintiff’s case proceeds to an adjudication on the merits, according to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), Plaintiff will be barred from introducing evidence that was not already provided to Defendant through initial disclosures or discovery. This sanction more appropriately addresses any potential prejudice to Defendant by limiting Plaintiff’s ability to bolster her claims with additional dilatory evidence in the same way Defendant has been limited by her scant discovery responses.

The court also rejected arguments that the case should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) which allows the court to dismiss an action for noncompliance with court orders or the failure to prosecute the claim.

The Clinton Law Firm, LLC