Inherent Power Sanctions for Failing to Return Confidential Information

http://ow.ly/73bB0

This is a post from the josephnyc.com website on the complex litigation blog webpage.

This is an article that provides information from a court order regarding the case of Johnson v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20868 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011).

In this case an attorney was subject to sanctions for failing to return confidential materials including a videotape and photos, upon the conclusion of a case in which he had agreed to return said materials.

The sanctioned attorney (Wesley Todd Ball) argued that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, as one defense.  The court held, "The record shows that Ball was required to appear in the district court in accordance with a valid subpoena and Order issued by that court to produce or permit inspection of the videotape or other confidential materials Ball inappropriately possessed. And the court had authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e) to sanction Ball for failure to obey the subpoena."  Mr. Ball apparently ignored court subpoenas and at first refused to make any representations regarding whether or not he still possessed the materials, but then later claimed he had destroyed them.

The court further stated, "Ball argues that he made inadvertently inconsistent representations and was sloppy in this entire matter. But the record suggests more than mere sloppiness. The Orders from the court were clear, correspondence from Ball was clear, and Ball's misrepresentations to the court were clear. Ball had ample opportunities to simply return the confidential materials but decided against it. His misrepresentations and conduct wasted time and scarce judicial resources."