United States of America v. Henry et al
Filing
254
ORDER adopting and approving 250 the Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendations; denying and dismissing with prejudice 218 Sealed Motion to Sanction the United States Kent Porter, and, Lori Wagner, Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2). White may a ppeal from the judgment entered pursuant to this Order by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of this court. United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of such judgment. A copy of this order was mailed to White on 3/21/17. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 3/20/17. (tbro)
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et a l . ,
Plaintiffs,
V.
Civil Action No.
JOHN CROCKETT HENRY,
2:07cv342
et a l . ,
Defendants.
In Re:
William A. White, Movant/Respondent
ORDER
Before
the
Court
and its attorneys,
11,
2016,
Mot.
motion
to
2016,
ECF No.
sanction
the
Kent Porter and Lori Wagner,
for Sanctions 1,
2016,
a
by movant and non-party,
on October 24,
7,
is
ECF No.
ECF No.
233.
William A.
218.
223,
United States
filed on October
White
(''White").
The United States responded
and White replied on November
The motion for
sanctions was
referred to
a United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation
pursuant
to
72(b)
the
Rule
of
72
of
the
provisions
Federal
the Rules
Rules
of
of
of
was
U.S.C.
Civil
§
636(b)(1)(B),
Procedure,
and Local
the United States District
Eastern District of Virginia.
Recommendation
28
filed
Court
Rule
Civil
for
the
The Magistrate Judge's Report and
December
denial of White's motion to sanction.
28,
2016,
and
recommends
R & R 13, ECF No. 250.
On January 13,
2017,
and Recommendation,
White filed objections to the Report
ECF No.
251,
and on January 27,
Government responded to White's objections,
ECF No.
2017,
252.
After
receiving the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
Court
is
required
portions
of
to
the
recommendations
"make
report
to
a
or
which
s^ Reddick v.
Cir.
(holding
empowered
to make
a
conclusion
when
court's
review
review,
the
United
must
Court
Recommendation,
the
be
[to]
a
is
reviews
the
such as
In
response
to
White's
those
or
U.S.C.
(4th
is
only
when evaluating a
[]
issued after
the
conducting
Magistrate
the
193
judge
litigation,"
a
Judge's
district
^
novo
Report
and
White's objections,
and examines the record,
States'
28
App'x 191,
magistrate
novo).
of
findings
made."
a non-party and
underlying
^
proposed
456 F.
recommendation,
of
determination
specified
White,
that
sanctions motion "addressed
the
novo
objection
§ 636 (B)(1);
2011)
de
the
the
objections,
and
White's
reply.
Federal
presenting a
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
pleading to the Court,
11(b)
after
an
inquiry
reasonable
that,
an attorney certifies
"to the best of that person's knowledge,
formed
provides
information,
under
by
that
and belief
circumstances,"
pleading:
1. is not being presented for any improper purpose,
such
as
to
harass,
cause
unnecessary
delay,
or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
the
3. the factual contentions have evidentiary support
or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery. . . .
Fed.
R.
has
Civ.
the
P.
11(b).
burden
of
burden is met,
The party moving for Rule 11 sanctions
proving
a
violation
of
Rule
11;
once
that
it shifts to the responding party to prove that
his or her conduct was reasonable.
See id. 11(c).
When evaluating whether a party has violated Rule 11(b)(1)(3),
the
Court
must
examine
the
pleadings
standard of objective reasonableness.
505,
519
(4th
Cir.
11(b)(1)); Cabell v.
(addressing
whether
a
1990)
Petty,
violation
pleading
of
is
In re Kunstler,
(addressing
810 F.2d 463,
Rule
filed
violation of Rule 11(b) (1),
with
an
at
519.
11(b)(1)
Instead,
must
intent to pursue
contention
chance
of
Earthgrains
success
Co.
party
that
[the claim] ."
violates
Rule
under
Bakery,
of
Rule
(4th Cir.
1987)
To
improper
determine
purpose,
in
''a court must ignore evidence of the
the
demonstrate
a
F.2d
violation
466-67
to
914
11(b) (2)- (3)) .
injured party's subjective beliefs."
505
according
281
(internal quotations omitted).
alleging
the
filer
Id.
11(b)(2)
the
In re Kunstler,
.3d
F.2d
violation
of
Rule
lacked
"sincere
a
The assertion of a
if
existing
F
914
it
has
"absolutely
precedent."
144,
153
legal
(4th
Hunter
Cir.
no
v.
2002)
Even if the law could colorably
support a
claim,
a
party violates Rule 11(b)(3)
no factual support for the asserted claims.
Brubaker
1991)
v.
City
of
("[Factual]
obtained
prior
Gilmore,
988
943
allegations
to
F.
Richmond,
filing
Supp.
F.2d
948,
See id.
1363,
unsupported
[violates
957
any
11].");
Va.
at 154-55;
1373
by
Rule
(E.D.
where there is
1997)
(4th
Cir.
information
Edmonds
(finding
v.
that
while plaintiff's claims were not sufficient to survive motions
to dismiss and for summary judgment,
objectively reasonable claims"
improper).
cautions
Finally,
courts
the
against
the plaintiff
"articulated
and therefore sanctions would be
Advisory
"using
Committee
the
wisdom
note
of
to
Rule
hindsight,"
11
but
instead directs courts to test factual allegations "by inquiring
what was reasonable to believe at the time the pleading, motion,
or other paper was
submitted."
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
11 Advisory
Committee's Notes.
White argues that the United States,
"[made]
factual
evidentiary
White,
when
contentions
support."
Mot.
knowing
for
through its attorneys,
that
Sanctions
they
1.
did
not
have
According
to
the United States knowingly made false factual statements
its
attorneys
violated a
Virginia,
claimed
protective
that
White
that
order issued by
had
made
attorney Mottley,
that
was
protective
subject
to
a
White
the
had
threatening
in
found
to
have
the Western District of
the transcript of
order
been
phone
call
to
the actual phone call
the
Western District
of
Virginia,
and
transcript
for
that
White
previously
in discovery.
sanctions,
the
Id.
had
received
the
call
Having reviewed White's motion
Magistrate
Judge
recommended
that
the
district court deny the motion because White failed to meet the
legal standard to demonstrate that the United States'
made
allegations
11(b)(1),
R.
Civ.
11(b)(3),
Magistrate
Judge's
that
specifically
false
an
improper
purpose,
Fed.
R.
Civ.
or made allegations without evidentiary support,
P.
reasons
for
attorneys
he
R
Report
argued
that
& R
the
in
13.
White
objects
and
Recommendation
for
his
initial
for
United
and therefore that
at
States'
motion
factual
P.
Fed.
to
the
the
same
sanctions,
assertions
are
the Magistrate Judge erred by failing
to find the statements to be false.
Objections to the R & R 1-
4,
the Magistrate Judge erred
ECF No.
251.
According to White,
in finding it "objectively reasonable"
assert
false
imposed.
factual
statements,
and
for the United States to
thus
sanctions
should
be
Id.
The Court, upon a ^
novo review, finds that the Magistrate
Judge correctly evaluated White's motion for sanctions.
White's objections are
restatements
of his
Because
same arguments
that
were properly analyzed by the Magistrate Judge in detail in the
Report
and
objections
Recommendation,
are
hereby ADOPT
without
and APPROVE
merit.
the
the
Court
finds
Accordingly,
findings
that
the
White's
Court
and recommendations
does
set
forth in the Report and Recommendation filed December 28,
It is,
No.
therefore,
218,
appeal
is
from
ORDERED that White's motion for sanctions,
DENIED
the
2016.
and
DISMISSED
judgment
WITH
entered
PREJUDICE.
pursuant
to
ECF
White
this
may-
Order
by
filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of this court.
United States
23510,
Courthouse,
within thirty
(30)
600
Granby Street,
days
from
the
date
Norfolk,
of
Virginia
entry of
such
copy of
this
judgment.
The
Clerk
is
DIRECTED
Order to White and to counsel
It
to mail
of
or
deliver
record for
a
the United States.
i s so ORDERED.
/s/
Mark S.
UNITED
Norfolk,
VA
March SlO , 2017
STATES
Davis
DISTRICT JUDGE
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?