Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesattorneydepositiondiscoveryliabilityappealtrialobjectioncivil procedure
damagesattorneydepositiondiscoveryliabilityappealtrialobjectioncivil procedure

Related Cases

Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 442, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9123, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,454
View Case »
Cheves v. Williams, 993 P.2d 191, 377 Utah Adv. Rep. 12, 1999 UT 86
View Case »
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647
View Case »
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Keeper of Records of My Sister’s Place, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2002 WL 31341083, 2002 -Ohio- 5600
View Case »
Marks v. Intergraph Corp., Inc., 740 So.2d 1066
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Jones Day, 800 F.3d 936, 92 Fed.R.Serv.3d 689

Facts

Security National Bank filed a products liability action against Abbott Laboratories on February 15, 2011, claiming that Abbott's baby formula contained harmful bacteria that caused meningitis and permanent brain damage to the minor child, J.M.K. The Bank sought $16 million in damages. During the discovery phase, defense counsel, June K. Ghezzi, was criticized for her conduct during depositions, which included excessive objections and interruptions. After the trial jury found in favor of Abbott, the district court imposed sanctions on Ghezzi for her deposition conduct, leading to an appeal.

Security National Bank filed a products liability action against Abbott Laboratories on February 15, 2011, claiming that Abbott's baby formula contained harmful bacteria that caused meningitis and permanent brain damage to the minor child, J.M.K. The Bank sought $16 million in damages. During the discovery phase, defense counsel, June K. Ghezzi, was criticized for her conduct during depositions, which included excessive objections and interruptions. After the trial jury found in favor of Abbott, the district court imposed sanctions on Ghezzi for her deposition conduct, leading to an appeal.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on defense counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) without providing particularized notice of the unusual nature of the sanctions?

Did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on defense counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) without providing particularized notice of the unusual nature of the sanctions?

Rule

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) allows courts to impose appropriate sanctions on any person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a deponent. Courts must provide notice of the sanctions being considered and an opportunity to be heard, especially when the sanctions could significantly impact an attorney's career.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) allows courts to impose appropriate sanctions on any person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a deponent. Courts must provide notice of the sanctions being considered and an opportunity to be heard, especially when the sanctions could significantly impact an attorney's career.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the district court failed to provide adequate notice regarding the nature of the sanctions it intended to impose. Although the court had communicated its reasons for considering sanctions, it did not inform defense counsel that the sanctions would require her to produce a training video addressing deposition conduct. This lack of particularized notice meant that Ghezzi was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the potential sanctions.

The Court of Appeals found that the district court failed to provide adequate notice regarding the nature of the sanctions it intended to impose. Although the court had communicated its reasons for considering sanctions, it did not inform defense counsel that the sanctions would require her to produce a training video addressing deposition conduct. This lack of particularized notice meant that Ghezzi was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the potential sanctions.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the sanctions imposed on defense counsel, concluding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide the necessary notice regarding the unusual nature of the sanctions.

The Court of Appeals vacated the sanctions imposed on defense counsel, concluding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide the necessary notice regarding the unusual nature of the sanctions.

Who won?

June K. Ghezzi and Jones Day prevailed in the appeal, as the Court of Appeals found that the sanctions were improperly imposed due to lack of notice.

June K. Ghezzi and Jones Day prevailed in the appeal, as the Court of Appeals found that the sanctions were improperly imposed due to lack of notice.

You must be