Charter Practices International, LLC et al v. Robb

Filing 253

ORDER re 187 plaintiffs' motion for sanctions due to Defendant's fraud on the Court. See attached. A telephonic conference is scheduled for 3/30/2015 at 11:00 AM. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 3/19/15.(Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CHARTER PRACTICES
INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN M. ROBB,
Defendant.

CASE NO.

3:12cv1768(RNC)

NOTICE and ORDER
Pending before the court is the plaintiffs' "Motion for
Sanctions Due to Defendant's Fraud on the Court."

(Doc. #187.)

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant bribed a witness,
Andy

Tanner

("Tanner"),

to

materially false statements.
2009 until 2012.

sign

an

affidavit

that

contains

Tanner worked for the defendant from

In a January 2013 affidavit, Tanner made various

statements as to the defendant's vaccine protocols, a key issue in
the

case.

The

defendant,

then

pro

se,

submitted

Tanner's

declaration in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.

The court subsequently denied the motion as moot.

(Doc. #86.)
According to the plaintiffs, Tanner approached plaintiffs'
counsel and executed a second declaration in April 2013.

In this

declaration, Tanner said that his first declaration contains false
statements about the defendant's vaccine practices, among other
things.

He listed and discussed each of the false statements in

the January affidavit.

Finally, Tanner averred that the defendant

paid him $200 in exchange for signing the January declaration.
(Doc. #188, Tanner April Decl. ¶¶4, 11.)

The plaintiffs contend

that the defendant's conduct constitutes fraud on the court and
that the court should sanction the defendant by dismissing his
counterclaims,

issuing

certain

findings

of

fact

and

awarding

plaintiffs their attorney fees incurred in making this motion.
The defendant denies that he bribed Tanner.
Tanner's

second

declaration,

not

his

first,

He asserts that
contains

false

statements. (Doc. #199.) The defendant maintains that: (1) Tanner
lacks credibility; (2) Tanner executed the second affidavit out of
"revenge"; (3) the statements in Tanner's April 2013 declaration
are contradicted by the declarations of other employees; and
(4) the $200 was a gift.
"A fraud on the court occurs where it is established by clear
and convincing evidence that a party has sentiently set in motion
some

unconscionable

scheme

calculated

to

interfere

with

the

judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by .
. . unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's
claim or defense." Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA Tech., LLC, 708 F.
Supp.2d 378, 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Upon finding that a party has engaged in misconduct that
rises to the level of fraud on the court, the court may
impose sanctions. Indeed, under its inherent authority,
the Court may do whatever is reasonably necessary to
deter abuse of the judicial process and assure a level
playing field for all litigants, . . . and this means
2

that the court may impose sanctions on the offending
party ranging from a jury charge, to an attorneys' fee
award, to the dismissal of a party's claims. . . .
Generally, in determining whether to sanction a party
with the dismissal of its claims, the court considers
five factors: (1) whether the misconduct was the product
of intentional bad faith; (2) whether and to what extent
the misconduct prejudiced the other party; (3) whether
there is a pattern of misbehavior, rather than an
isolated instance; (4) whether and when the misconduct
was corrected; and (5) whether further misconduct is
likely to continue in the future. . . .
In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 05 Civ.
1897(HB)(DF), 2011 WL 2581755, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2011),
report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 2471267 (S.D.N.Y. June
21, 2011).

See also Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, No. 10–CV–00569A(F),

2013 WL 1208558, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2013)("courts within the
Second Circuit have dismissed cases upon determining the actions
were based on forged documents or fabricated evidence") (citing
cases).
An evidentiary hearing is necessary before the court can
determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
See Shah v. Eclipsys Corp., No. 08-CV-2528 (JFB), 2010 WL 2710618
(E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2010)("Although an evidentiary hearing is not
always necessary before finding a party has committed fraud on the
court, many courts in this circuit and elsewhere have exercised
their discretion to hold evidentiary hearings before imposing
sanctions on that basis.")(citing cases).
The

court

reserves

decision

3

on

plaintiffs'

motion

for

sanctions pending an evidentiary hearing.

The parties shall

participate in a telephone conference on March 30, 2015 at 11:00
a.m. to schedule the hearing.

Plaintiffs' counsel shall initiate

the conference call and shall have opposing counsel on the line
when calling chambers.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 19th day of March,
2015.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

4