Gibson et al v. Credit Suisse Securities USA, LLC et al
Filing
474
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: MOTION OF CHRIS FLOOD AND JOHN FLOOD FORRELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ORDER OF 3/29/2013 (DKT # 352 ) granting 364 Motion for Relief. The Court rules that John Flood and Chris Flood are not subject to the sanctions otherwise described and imposed by the Courts 3/29/2013 Memorandum Decision and Order. Signed by Judge Ronald E. Bush. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
L.J. GIBSON, BEAU BLIXSETH, AMY KOENIG,
VERN JENNINGS, MARK MUSHKIN,
MONIQUE LEFLEUR, and GRIFFEN
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, JUDY LAND, and
CHARLES DOMINGUEZ, each individually, and
on behalf of PROPOSED Plaintiff CLASS
Members of Tamarack Resort, Yellowstone Club,
Lake Las Vegas, and Ginn sur Mer,
Case No.: CV 10-1-EJL-REB
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE: MOTION OF CHRIS
FLOOD AND JOHN FLOOD FOR
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ORDER
OF MARCH 29, 2013 (DKT #352)
(Docket No. 364)
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CREDIT SUISSE AG, a Swiss corporation;
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, CREDIT
SUISSE FIRST BOSTON, a Delaware limited
liability corporation; CREDIT SUISSE CAYMAN
ISLAND BRANCH, an entity of unknown type;
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., a Delaware
corporation and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
Defendants.
Now pending before the Court is the “Motion of Chris Flood and John Flood for Relief
from Sanctions Order of March 29, 2013 (DKT #352)” (“Motion for Relief”) (Docket No. 364).
Having carefully considered the record and otherwise being fully advised, the undersigned enters
the following Memorandum Decision and Order:
I. BACKGROUND
1.
On June 4, 2012, Defendant Cushman & Wakefield filed a motion for sanctions,
arguing that Plaintiffs should be sanctioned due to their (and/or their counsel’s) “misconduct in
failing to disclose for more than one year the existence of a signed affidavit from Michael Miller,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
while at the same time submitting to the Court and relying on a different, unsigned declaration.”
See C & W’s Mot. for Sanctions, p. 2 (Docket No. 246).
2.
In support of its June 15, 2012 motion for reconsideration (seeking
reconsideration of Judge Edward J. Lodge’s March 30, 2012 Order (Docket No. 210)),
Defendant Credit Suisse highlighted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reliance upon Mr. Miller’s unsigned
March 19, 2011 declaration up to that point in the litigation when, in fact, they were in
possession of a later-in-time, signed affidavit from Mr. Miller that was substantively different
from Mr. Miller’s earlier declaration. See Mem. in Supp. of Credit Suisse’s Mot. for Recons.,
pp. 1-2 (Docket No. 253, Att. 1). In turn, Credit Suisse moved the Court to (1) reconsider its
denial of Credit Suisse’s renewed motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ negligence claim in light of the
“Miller revelations,” and (2) order Plaintiffs to show cause as to why they should not be
sanctioned “for misleading the Court in violation of their duty of candor.” See id. at p. 3.
3.
Plaintiffs opposed Cushman & Wakefield’s motion for sanctions and Credit
Suisse’s motion for order to show cause. See Pls.’ Opp. to C & W’s Mot. for Sanctions; and
Pls.’ Opp. to Credit Suisse’s Mot. for Order to Show Cause (Docket Nos. 265 & 271).
4.
On December 5, 2012, the undersigned heard oral argument on (1) Cushman &
Wakefield’s June 4, 2012 motion for sanctions, and (2) Credit Suisse’s June 15, 2012 motion for
order to show cause. See 12/5/12 Minute Entry (Docket No. 309).
5.
On December 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file expedited five-
page brief regarding the order to show cause hearing, arguing that “[t]he issue before the Court
has serious consequences, particularly to the integrity and reputation of Plaintiffs’ attorneys as
well as the other considerations articulated in court,” that “[n]o pre-hearing briefs were requested
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
by either the Court or the parties and the issues are now focused for a meaningful brief,” and that
“[t]here were issues propounded at the hearing which deserve a meaningful and thoughtful input
from counsel.” See Pls.’ Mot. for Leave, pp. 1-2 (Docket No. 308).
6.
On December 6, 2012, the undersigned granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave,
reasoning:
The Court struggles with any assessment of the pending motions for sanctions that
does not immediately raise significant issues for Plaintiffs requiring a thorough and
careful response. However, it is possible that the seriousness of the issue raised by
the motions for sanctions, and the sanctions requested by Defendants, were not
apprehended by Plaintiffs’ counsel to the appropriate degree. Given the implications
of the pending motions for all of Plaintiffs’ counsel, and for the claims made in the
lawsuit, the Court will grant the Motion.
See 12/6/12 MDO, p. 2 (Docket No. 311).
7.
On December 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their post-hearing brief, arguing that
sanctions should not be imposed. See Pls.’ Post-Hearing Brief (Docket No. 315).
8.
On December 13, 2012, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ post-hearing brief,
arguing that sanctions should be imposed against Plaintiffs. See Credit Suisse & C & W Resps.
(Docket Nos. 321 & 322).
9.
On March 29, 2013, the undersigned issued a Memorandum Decision and Order,
granting Cushman & Wakefield’s motion for sanctions and Credit Suisse’s motion for order to
show cause. See 3/29/13 MDO (Docket No. 352). Therein, the undersigned sanctioned
Plaintiffs and/or their counsel as follows: (1) Plaintiffs’ counsel may not use the testimonial
evidence of Michael Miller in this case for any purpose, other than as obtained in deposition or
courtroom testimony; (2) Plaintiffs’ counsel are individually sanctioned in the amount of
$6,000.00; and (3) Plaintiffs’ counsel, jointly and severally, shall pay a sum to each Defendant –
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
Credit Suisse and Cushman & Wakefield – to be determined upon consideration of appropriate
evidence, to recompense said Defendants for the attorneys’ fees and costs necessitated by the
motions filed seeking sanctions as a result of the failure to file the sworn affidavit of Mr. Miller.
See id. at pp. 23-28.
10.
Relevant here, regarding the above-referenced monetary sanctions, the
undersigned’s March 29, 2013 Memorandum Decision and Order specifically identified
attorneys Huntley, Conant, Sabalos, and Flynn as being “absolutely subject” to the
Memorandum Decision and Order. With respect to Plaintiffs’ other attorneys, the Court stated:
To the extent any one of Plaintiffs’ remaining counsel believes that he should not be
subject to this Memorandum Decision and Order, he is to file a motion seeking relief
from the same on or before April 12, 2013, detailing the good cause for said relief.
See id. at p. 24).
11.
On April 12, 2013, Plaintiffs’ attorneys Chris Flood and John Flood filed the at-
issue Motion for Relief, arguing that: “(1) Chris Flood and John Flood objected to, and
recommended against, the interactions with the witness Mike Miller that led to the submission of
the unsigned declaration; (2) they did not originate any of the court filings that referenced
Miller’s purported testimony or his status as a “whistle blower” that feared retaliation; (3) they
did not make a false statement of fact or fail to correct what they believed to be a false statement
of fact; and (4) their efforts related to the Mike Miller unsigned/signed declaration situation were
focused, primarily, on attempting to assist this Court and the class by taking Miller’s deposition
to determine what knowledge he had, if any, of Cushman & Wakefield’s employees’ actions
relevant to the allegations in the Plaintiffs’ complaint, and secondarily, statements made by the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
witness to co-counsel, and reasons for the discrepancy between the unsigned and signed
declarations.” See Mot. for Relief, p. 2 (Docket No. 364).1
II. DISCUSSION
As one would expect in these circumstances, the Floods seek to avoid the sanctions
otherwise imposed by the Court’s March 29, 2013 Memorandum Decision and Order
(“Sanctions Order”) by distancing themselves from specific conduct referenced in that Order. In
their Motion for Relief and supporting memorandum, as highlighted in part above, they inform
the Court that they had advised, and would have chosen, a different approach to dealing with the
so-called “whistle-blower” witness, Michael Miller. They state that, although John Flood was
involved in drafting or editing some of the documents filed with the Court, neither he nor Chris
Flood contributed any part of the mention or emphasis upon Mr. Miller’s purported testimony,
and neither of them played any part in drafting Mr. Miller’s original, unsigned declaration, nor in
making the decision to file the same with the Court as an exhibit to co-counsel Mr. Huntley’s
affidavit. The Floods describe their roles as lawyers requested to be the Plaintiffs’ “trial
counsel,” in a self-described “minority position,” and say that were not expected to play much of
a role in the pretrial course of the lawsuit. Further, they point to other lawyers as the real
decision makers, including referring to Mr. Flynn as “lead counsel.” They claim that when they
first became aware of differences between the “unsigned” March 19, 2011 Miller declaration
(which had been filed with the Court), and the later signed May 4, 2011 Miller affidavit (which
was not submitted to the Court), they “immediately contacted lead counsel Mr. Flynn and
1
Messrs. Sabalos and Huntley filed declarations “in response” to the Floods’ April 7,
2013 filing. See Sabalos & Huntley Decls. (Docket Nos. 383, 385 & 390).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
ensured that he was aware of the differences.” They further aver to the fact of having
conversations with Mr. Miller’s personal attorney, Robert Turner, who asked them not to contact
Mr. Miller until he had time to conduct his own investigation into the events involving Mr.
Miller. Later, Mr. Turner said that Mr. Miller would only testify by deposition, and when Mr.
Miller’s deposition was taken, Chris Flood learned that Mr. Miller had never given Mr. Turner a
copy of the affidavit that Miller had previously signed. Chris Flood says that upon learning that
fact, he gave Mr. Turner a copy of the affidavit (but not opposing counsel), and Mr. Turner said
he would give a copy to the other attorneys attending the deposition (which included attorneys
for Credit Suisse and Cushman & Wakefield).
The Floods disavow any direct connection to the filing of the “Opposition to Emergency
Motion to Strike,” which made copious reference to Mr. Miller’s unsigned declaration, and that,
although John Flood did editing work on and prepared legal argument contained in the Third
Amended Complaint, none of the fundamental factual recitations in that document was written
by either of the Floods. More generally, the Floods contend that they never described Mr. Miller
as a whistle-blower; never presented, relied upon, or argued the facts in Mr. Miller’s unsigned
declaration; and were not asked to and did not “pre-hear” any such arguments.
From such self-described limited knowledge of the fact of Mr. Miller’s unsigned (but
filed) March 19, 2011 declaration, and self-described disavowal of involvement in the use of the
same in subsequent written and oral argument, the Floods ask to be exempted from the Court’s
Sanctions Order. Notably, the Floods do not contend that they were unaware that the content of
Mr. Miller’s unsigned declaration, which was filed with the Court, differed from the content of
Mr. Miller’s subsequently-signed affidavit, which was not so filed. However, they represent that
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
they had no knowledge of the unsigned declaration at the time it was prepared, and say that it
was prepared and submitted to the Court without their knowledge. The Floods state that when
they became aware of the fact that the signed affidavit contained discrepancies between it and
the earlier unsigned declaration, they made certain that the differences were known by “lead
counsel,” and they were assured by co-counsel who were in contact with Mr. Miller that he
would sign the original declaration. The Floods also say that they were assured that Mr. Miller
would affirm the omitted portions of the original declaration in a sworn deposition.
The Court has also considered the filings made by Plaintiffs’ other counsel which are
styled, in part, as a response to the filings made by Messrs. Schwartzman, Chris Flood and John
Flood. See, e.g., Sabalos & Huntley Decls. (Docket Nos. 383, 385 & 390). Mr. Huntley’s
declaration repeats his belief that there is no basis whatsoever for any sanction against any of
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and goes on to characterize the eight individual Plaintiffs’ counsel as a
collective “‘[p]artnership,’ jointly and severally liable for the acts or omissions of each other.”
See Huntley Decl., p. 1 (Docket No. 385). In relevant part, as to Mr. Flood, Mr. Huntley’s
declaration contains the following:
•
On May 4, 2011, he sent an email attaching the “first signed Declaration
by Miller to ALL Class Counsel,” including Mr. Flood, which said among
other things: “I had a nice chat with Miller a few moments ago and then
he put his affidavit on the fax machine and I attach a copy . . . . His
amendments are relatively minor and he assured me he will have “a lot
more to say” once he is under a subpoena . . . . I await the final approved
documents from John and Mike and further orders.”
•
“At no time from May 4, 2011 did any of the eight (8) class counsel
suggest that the first signed Declaration or the later signed affidavit should
be or needed to be filed or served.”
•
“On Friday, March 18, 2011, the day before Mr. Miller appeared in
Denver to present his testimony to Mr. Conant and Mr. Huntley, John
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7
Flood wrote to Huntley and Conant that ‘any affidavit at this state must
be (1) brief; (2) 100% factual; and (3) if it has any tone at all, one of
regret is much, much better than any other. Putting him on pedestal is
shortsighted and projects insecurity. Simple, straightforward and no
agenda is hard to cross examine and is (in my opinion) more believable
to a judge.’”
•
“On May 16, 2011, John Flood, evidencing his further involvement with
Mr. Miller, wrote the following email to class counsel: ‘I spoke with
Miller this morning. Chris and I are going to be meeting with him soon.
Thank you, John Flood’”
•
“In the August 2011 time frame, there were negotiations with Assistant
United States Attorney, Katherine Ho in Florida, to make arrangements
for Mr. Miller to provide evidence in an investigation involving Credit
Suisse and at that time Mr. Miller was represented by attorney Robert G.
Turner who has directed Mr. Miller not to allow his signed declaration to
become published due to the sensitivity of the negotiations and
proceedings in Florida.”
•
“On Monday, April 22, 2011, Michael Flynn advised Chris Flood that he
should cooperate with getting Miller’s information to Assistant U.S.
Attorney Katherine Ho and on the same date Chris Flood emailed the
following message to Katherine Ho: ‘Mr. Miller’s attorney is Robert G.
Turner at 713-526-9675. I was told that his email address is [omitted]. If
you need further information, don’t hesitate to call.’”
•
“When the Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint were
argued, both Co-lead counsel Schwartzman and Huntley were present and
presenting segments of the arguments. Present also were John & Chris
Flood, Mike Flynn, James Sabalos, and Christopher Conant. Philip
Stillman was not present.”
See id. at pp. 2-4.
Mr. Sabalos, in his own declaration, had these things to say, in pertinent part:
•
“On August 10, 2011, Chris Flood sent me (and other lawyers for the
Plaintiffs) an email in response to a prior call to him regarding the status
of Mr. Miller and the criminal proceedings we had just learned about in
the Middle District of Florida . . . . In summary, Mr. Flood expressed the
fact that Mr. Turner had spoken with Mr. [Miller] and would speak with
him again, but that until Turner gains assurances from the Government
that Mr. Miller is not a target or has received immunity, Miller would not
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8
sign or say anything and that we should exercise great care, now in
connection with Miller, because he is a valuable witness that we will need
and do not want to push him away from cooperating with us and ‘we do
not want to ignore his concerns.’” (Emphasis in original.)
•
“On that same day, I advised Mr. Chris Flood that I recalled Mr. Turner,
that I had previously requested Mr. Haney and others have no further
contact with Mr. Miller in light of his concerns, that the lawyers for the
Plaintiffs ‘...speak with one voice in dealing with the Government (Mike
Flynn with the Florida AUSA and/or you and John [Flood] with respect
to Miller and Miller’s counsel’).” (Emphasis in original.)
•
“On Monday, August 22, 2011, Assistant United States
Attorney...Katherine Ho, sent an email to Mike Flynn copied to Chris
Flood regarding the ‘Subject: RE: Miller and Credit Suisse/Cushman &
Wakefield’. Attached ...is her email in quotes: ‘Mike and Chris - I have
just spoken with Kris McLean. My office will be handling the potential
proffer by Mr. Miller. Chris, if you would forward Miller’s counsel
contact information, I would appreciate it. Thanks-Kathy.’ In that followup email, Mr. Flynn responded to her request by providing Mr. Miller’s
unsigned affidavit.” (Emphasis in original.)
•
“On September 23, 2011, in response to a question I had regarding the
status of Mr. Miller, Mr. Flood advised me that he had spoken to Mr.
Turner and he thought things might be going well, but that we must
approach Mr. Miller with kid gloves because of fears or threats that he
could be a target and that we needed to back away from the federal
investigation underway by Ms. Ho (and presumably others in law
enforcement) and just let the story of what happened come from him and
others.”
•
“Up through the end of the year and into the very date and our hearing in
early January of 2012, I was in full agreement that any activity in the case
with respect to Mr. Miller be coordinated by and through Mr. Flynn with
the Government and Mr. Chris Flood with Mr. Miller’s counsel to ensure
we respected the rights of a witness to not one federal proceeding, but two
federal proceedings. That is, no longer were we dealing in 2011 and 2012
with Mr. Miller and his counsel’s requests that we not use a signed
document or any material, as I understood it, unless and until we got some
kind of clearance with his counsel. We were now dealing with a witness
who the Government was possibly interested in meeting to determine
from a proffer whether immunity would be required or whether he could
cooperate because he would not be deemed a target.” (Emphasis in
original.)
See Sabalos Decl., pp. 8-11 (Docket No. 383)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9
The upshot of these statements (from Messrs. Huntley and Sabalos) is to describe a more
extensive involvement of the Floods in the events and decisions involving Mr. Miller’s role in
this case than the Floods would describe on their own. Although Mr. Huntley’s declaration
disclaims any intention to “shift responsibility from Declarant to others, or to in any way
apportion responsibility,” it appears inescapably designed to place the Flood brothers within the
circle, so to speak, of those who had knowledge and who could have chosen to speak up or act
differently regarding Mr. Miller’s signed affidavit (which was never filed with the Court) but
didn’t – instead, submitting to the Court and relying on a different, unsigned declaration from
Mr. Miller.
There are nuances in all of that, to be sure, and the Floods take great pains to distinguish
their particular involvement in the circumstances leading to this juncture from the actions (or
inactions) of their co-counsel. For example, the Floods state repeatedly that they were in a
“minority” position (both as to their expected role in the litigation and as to their share of any
income that might come from such representation). They emphasize that they “ensured that the
fact of the discrepancies between the two declarations were known by those in control on the
Plaintiffs’ team....” See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. For Relief, p. 9 (Docket No. 364, Att. 1)
(Emphasis added). In the conclusion section of their memorandum arguing for relief from the
sanctions, the Floods summarize their involvement in this manner:
Chris and John Flood have adduced persuasive evidence establishing that: (1)
they objected to, and recommended against, the interactions with the witness
Mike Miller that led to the submission of the unsigned declaration; (2) they did
not originate any of the court filings that referenced Miller’s purported testimony
or his status as a “whistle blower” that feared retaliation; (3) they did not make
a false statement of fact or fail to correct what they believed to be a false
statement of fact; and, (4) their efforts related to the Mike Miller unsigned/signed
declaration situation were focused, primarily, on attempting to assist this Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10
and the class by taking Miller’s deposition to determine what knowledge he had,
if any . . . .
Id., pp. 12-13.
As noted earlier, the Floods admit to their knowledge of the “discrepancies” between Mr.
Miller’s unsigned March 19, 2011 declaration, and his signed, but unfiled, May 4, 2011 affidavit,
and the fact that neither of them brought the fact of the signed, and different May 4, 2011
affidavit to the attention of the Court. In their declarations, each of the Floods say that although
they “had the ability and opportunity to inform the Court and my clients’ opponents of the signed
declaration prior to when [they] did” neither of them “recall either of us making a conscious
decision to not do so” and they believe that “an earlier revelation would have required our
making an independent filing, akin to this declaration and the motion and memorandum it
accompanies.” See J. Flood Decl., pp. 4-5 (Docket No. 364, Att. 3). They enlarge upon this
subject in their memorandum, and argue that:
[u]nder such circumstances, including their minority position amongst a group of
counsel, Rule 3.3 did not required them to “go rogue” and unilaterally reveal the
sworn declaration before they did so in 2012, when the witness’ lawyer asked for
a copy of the signed statement. Therefore, the Floods never made a false
statement of fact and to the extent that they became aware of a signed declaration
that was different from an unsigned declaration, they notified the counsel who had
made representations to the Court and believed the witness would testify under
oath to the facts in the unsigned declaration.
See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. For Relief, p. 8 (Docket No. 364, Att. 1). The Floods also state that
they “have not been paid any fees [and] and are out-of-pocket several thousands of dollars . . . .”
Id. at p. 13. They represent that they have “donated hundreds of hours of free legal work to a
putative class.” See Flood Decls., p. 5 (Docket No. 364, Atts. 2 & 3).
In the prior decision holding that such sanctions were properly justified in this case, the
Court focused upon three essential elements: (1) the fact of Mr. Miller’s unsigned, unsworn
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11
March 19, 2011 declaration, presented and thereby represented to the Court as tantamount to
testimony under oath, prevented from being made under oath only because of the declarant’s fear
of retribution or retaliation from Defendants; (2) the receipt by Plaintiffs’ counsel of a statement
signed under oath by Mr. Miller at a later date (Mr. Miller’s May 4, 2011 affidavit), but which
was not filed with the Court despite the fact that it was not identical to the March 19, 2011
unsigned declaration which had been filed; and (3) the subsequent repeated reference to and
heavy reliance upon the testimony contained in Mr. Miller’s March 19, 2011 unsigned
declaration in the Third Amended Complaint, and in Plaintiffs’ attempt to renew a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty, in both written filings and in oral argument, despite the fact that it
differed from the signed May 4, 2011 affidavit and despite the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel was in
possession of the May 4, 2011 affidavit. In turn, the Court concluded that the conduct of
Plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with those three subjects ran afoul of those lawyers’
responsibilities to the Court and to their profession, such that sanctions should be imposed by
way of redress for their conduct, pursuant to authority granted to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §
1297, Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3,2 and under the inherent powers of the Court.
Such a decision involved an assessment of each attorney’s culpability for the improper
conduct; however, some of the record applicable to that assessment was of a collective nature as
to certain of Plaintiffs’ counsel, which prompted the Court to allow them an opportunity to argue
to the Court that they should not be subject to the sanctions. Importantly, the Court did not
premise its prior sanctions order upon FRCP 11, and expressly stated that the Court was making
2
As made applicable to attorneys practicing in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, pursuant to District of Idaho Local Civil Rule 83.5.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12
no findings on whether or not the complained of conduct ran afoul of that Rule. See 3/29/13
MDO, p. 23 (Docket No. 352). Accordingly, whether or not Messrs. Flood signed the filing
which placed Mr. Miller’s unsigned March 19, 2011 declaration into the record is not at issue
here. Rather, the central issue is their individual connection, if any, to the decision not to place
Mr. Miller’s subsequently sworn and signed affidavit in the record, while still relying upon and
emphasizing Mr. Miller’s previous, unsigned declaration in the ongoing motion practice. In that
regard, the Court examines the individual conduct of Messrs. Flood to determine whether they
have abused duties owed to the Court that constituted or was tantamount to bad faith, and by
doing so multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously.
This ultimate question is not easily decided; indeed, the very fact that the original
decision issued by this Court included the Floods in those who are subject to the findings that
there had been violations of the duties owed by Plaintiffs’ counsel to the Court and to their
profession is illustrative. In other words, had it been evident from the record previously before
the Court that the Floods were not culpable for their involvement in the circumstances at issue,
the Floods would have been excluded from the impact of that decision.
The Court also finds that certain of the Floods’ arguments for being so excluded are
simply misplaced, given the underlying basis for the Court’s prior decision on this subject. It
matters not that the Floods are unpaid for any legal services that they have performed, or that
they are out-of-pocket for any expenses they have incurred. Those details are a matter of
contract between them and their clients, and the other Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Floods may
perceive such facts to be important details of equity, given the nature of the Court’s prior ruling,
but the subject before the Court is not that of balancing a financial ledger. Rather, the Court is
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13
charged with considering issues of professional standards in the conduct of a lawyer, and
adherence to the same. Similarly, the Floods are mistaken in their argument (raised by other
Plaintiffs’ counsel as well) that they were not required to “go rogue” by unilaterally disclosing to
the Court the existence of the signed May 4, 2011 affidavit, which contained discrepancies
between its language and that of the unsigned March 19, 2011 declaration, which had been filed,
and from which arguments were made orally and in writing. Their professional duties under the
Idaho Rules of Professional Responsibility, to which they submitted themselves by choosing to
become involved in this lawsuit, and their professional responsibilities as officers of this Court
are duties that inhere in each lawyer individually. The rationale offered by the Floods – that they
were not required to “go rogue” on these facts – would place a misplaced loyalty to their cocounsel ahead of their responsibilities and duties as officers of the court. Additionally, there
were options available to them apart from their choice to sit silent, including the option of
seeking to withdraw from the case.
On these facts, the Court is satisfied and concludes that the individual decisions of the
Floods in not bringing the fact of the signed, but not filed, May 4, 2011 affidavit of Mr. Miller to
the attention of the Court when they knew that the affidavit contained discrepancies between its
content and the content of the unsigned, but filed, March 19, 2011 declaration, violate the duties
owed to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, for the reason that their decision not to inform the
Court on their own, when their co-counsel did not do so, is still conduct which had the effect of
recklessly or intentionally misleading the Court. See, In re Girardi, 611 F. 3d 1027, 1061 (9th
Cir. 2010). Further, the fact that they did not take that action is a violation of Idaho Rule of
Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1), which requires that a lawyer shall not knowingly “make a false
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14
statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.” (Emphasis supplied.) As described in the
Court’s prior decision:
Consistent with this, a lawyer’s failure to make a disclosure can be the equivalent of
an affirmative misrepresentation. See IRPC 3.3, cmt. 3. Moreover, given a
“lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being
misled by false evidence” (see IRPC 3.3, cmt. 5), when previously-offered materials
turn out to be false/misleading, a lawyer’s “duty of candor to the tribunal” warrants
“reasonable remedial measures” (see IRPC 3.3, cmt. 10).
See 3/29/13 MDO, p. 16 (Docket No. 352).
Having decided that the each of the Flood’s individual conduct in these circumstances
falls short of those measures, what remains is for the Court to reexamine whether the conduct
also “constituted or was tantamount to bad faith,” so as to justify sanctions as an appropriate
consequence of such shortcomings. “Before awarding sanctions under its inherent powers . . .the
court must make an explicit finding that counsel’s conduct ‘constituted or was tantamount to bad
faith.’” Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc., v. Batarse, 115 F. 3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980)). With the additional information
placed in the record by the Floods’ Motion for Relief from Sanctions Order, and the
Memorandum and Declarations in support thereof (which the Court has considered fully and
thoughtfully), the Court now rules that the individual conduct of the Floods, although falling
short of their responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and IRPC.3.3, did not constitute or was
tantamount to bad faith.
The Court bases its decision in that regard on two primary grounds. First, the Court is
satisfied from the materials placed into the record by the Floods, and from the collective
information gleaned from elsewhere in the myriad of briefing and declarations filed by Plaintiffs’
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 15
various counsel on this subject, that the Floods had been asked to take on a discrete role in the
lawsuit, and that their recommended course of action in these particular circumstances, in the
event of disagreement between the counsel, was neither anticipated to be the controlling voice,
nor was it treated by other counsel as the controlling voice. Had it been, there would have been
no interview of Mr. Miller in Denver, Colorado in the absence of Mr. Miller being represented
by his own counsel, and the nature in which Mr. Miller’s unsworn March 19, 2011 declaration
was used in subsequent briefing and argument likely would have been different. Second, the
affirmative and inherently misleading nature of the use of the testimony contained in Miller’s
unsworn declaration was not the direct product of the work of either of the Floods. They were
not aware of the fact of the filing of the unsworn declaration until after it had occurred, and they
were not consulted about it. They did not author any portion of the briefing that emphasized
such testimony, nor did they draw attention and emphasize such testimony during hearings
before the Court. Even though Chris Flood was the attorney involved in the taking of Mr.
Miller’s deposition, he testified in his declaration that when he became aware for the first time
that Mr. Miller’s personal attorney, Mr. Turner, did not have a copy of Mr. Miller’s May 4, 2011
affidavit before the deposition, he gave Mr. Turner a copy of the affidavit and did so with the
understanding that Mr. Turner would be providing a copy to Defendants’ counsel at the time of
the deposition.
In sum, there are ameliorating facts which lessen, in the Court’s view, the relative
culpability of the Floods in connection with the particular details of the actions and inactions
which led this Court to make the decision it did in its prior Memorandum Decision and Order on
the sanctions issues. That is not to say that the Court finds that Floods’ conduct was proper. To
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 16
the contrary, as described above, the conduct fell short of what was expected of them. However,
in the context of the particular individual conduct of John Flood and Chris Flood, the Court
concludes that although the Floods’ conduct veered close to such a dividing line, it did not reach
the point of constituting or being tantamount to bad faith.
III. ORDER
For the reasons described in this decision, the Court rules that John Flood and Chris
Flood are not subject to the sanctions otherwise described and imposed by the Court’s March 29,
2013 Memorandum Decision and Order. The “Motion of Chris Flood and John Flood for Relief
from Sanctions Order of March 29, 2013 (DKT #352)” (Docket No. 364) is GRANTED.
DATED: March 20, 2014
Honorable Ronald E. Bush
U. S. Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 17
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?