Radecki v. GlaxoSmithKline - Connecticut Employment Law Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

an ALJ. Key to the Court’s holding was its view that “[w]henCongress expressly delegates to an administrative agency theauthority to make specific policy determinations, courts mustgive the agency’s decision controlling weight unless it is‘arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.’”Id. at 324. The Court’s views on false testimony were quiteclear. The court stated that “[f]alse testimony in a formalproceeding is intolerable.” Id. at 323.In any proceeding, whether judicial or administrative,deliberate falsehoods “well may affect the dearestconcerns of the parties before a tribunal,” United Statesv. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574, 57 S.Ct. 535, 539, 81 L.Ed.808 (1937), and may put the factfinder and parties “tothe disadvantage, hindrance, and delay of ultimatelyextracting the truth by cross examination, by extraneousinvestigation or other collateral means.” Ibid. Perjuryshould be severely sanctioned in appropriate cases.Id. In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia observed that “[t]heprinciple that a perjurer should not be rewarded with ajudgment--even a judgment otherwise deserved--where there isdiscretion to deny it, has a long and sensible tradition in thecommon law.” Id. at 329.After reviewing the authorities discussed above, the courtadvised counsel during oral argument on the instant motion thatit had concluded that the appropriate sanction in this case waseither a sanction of dismissal or a sanction in the form of anaward to the defendant of its costs and fees associated with themistrial and the instant motion. The imposition of either-16-
sanction in response to perjury is a remedy within the inherentpower of the court. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45(1991). No lesser sanction would constitute an adequatestatement as to the seriousness of the effect of the plaintiff’smisconduct on the adjudicative process in this case and provideadequate protection for the integrity of trial proceedings bydeterring others who might be tempted to engage in suchmisconduct. In considering the cases where a sanction in theform of costs and expenses was imposed, the court places weighton the fact that those cases did not involve perjury in a formalproceeding, i.e., the context in which such strong language wasused by the Supreme Court in ABF Freight System. Bower andRybner both involved perjury during a deposition, and in eachcase, the perjury was disclosed before trial by counsel for theperson who gave the perjurious testimony–-albeit not until it wasapparent that the perjury was about to be uncovered. <strong>Radecki</strong> hadan opportunity to make an accurate voluntary disclosure, butinstead made one that was misleading. In Bower, the courtconcluded that the perjury had little effect on the merits, andin both cases, the perjury occurred sufficiently in advance ofthe trial on the merits so that the opposing party had sufficienttime to be prepared for trial with the benefit of truthfultestimony. Here, it appears that the perjury would have had amaterial effect on the trial, and because the perjury occurred at-17-
Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRIC
Page 3 and 4: A: Because of the last week of Octo
Page 5 and 6: proceeded with the understanding th
Page 7 and 8: merely told the jurors not to consi
Page 9 and 10: (Trial Tr. Vol. I, 152, May 7, 2009
Page 11 and 12: change conveyed to the jury not jus
Page 13 and 14: discovery tactics designed and inte
Page 15: Id. at 1301. In Rybner v. Cannon De
Page 19 and 20: his case before a new jury would gi

Radecki v. GlaxoSmithKline - Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?