Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 10 of 139
of Am., 2 F.3d at 1410 (“When parties or their attorneys engage in bad faith conduct, a court
should ordinarily rely on the Federal Rules as the basis for sanctions.”).
When inherent power does apply, it is “interpreted narrowly, and its reach is limited
by its ultimate source—the court’s need to orderly and expeditiously perform its duties.”
Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 2002) (footnote omitted) (citing
Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43). In Chambers, the inherent power was linked to the bad-faith
conduct that affected the litigation. See 501 U.S. at 49. If inherent power, rather than a
specific rule or statute, provides the source of the sanctioning authority, under Chambers, it
may be limited to a degree of culpability greater than negligence.
Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides:
If a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent--or a
witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)--fails to
obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order
under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is
pending may issue further just orders. They may include the
following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the
action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing
designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in
part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the
disobedient party; or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any
order except an order to submit to a physical or mental
examination.
10