Bradley J. Delp Revocable Trust Dated January 8, 1992 v. MSJMR 2008 Irrevocable Trust Dated December 31, 2008, 665 F. App'x 514

Background

Bradley and Cleves Delp, brothers, were co-owners of family businesses (The Delp Company and DelHold, LLC); Bradley claimed Cleves and others misappropriated his ownership interest.
Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants in 2014; the district court narrowed discovery to threshold ownership issues and ordered focused document exchange.
In Feb 2015 Bradley produced over 65 pages of documents that contained defendants’ attorney-client communications and other privileged/confidential materials; defendants claimed these were stolen from Cleves’ office and computer.
At his deposition Bradley invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly and later admitted in an evidentiary hearing that he had accessed Cleves’ office/computer on multiple occasions and printed emails and documents; his testimony contained significant inconsistencies with documentary and witness evidence (network admin, employees).
The district court found Bradley acted in bad faith, attempted to cover up the misconduct, and that his conduct prejudiced defendants; it dismissed Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint with prejudice as an inherent-power sanction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court could dismiss with prejudice under its inherent authority for pre‑litigation misconduct	Bradley’s misconduct occurred before litigation and thus was outside the court’s sanctionable conduct; dismissal was excessive	Court has inherent power to sanction bad‑faith conduct that abuses the judicial process, even if some misconduct predated formal litigation	Affirmed: court may invoke inherent authority to dismiss for bad‑faith conduct that taints litigation
Whether Bradley’s conduct constituted willfulness, bad faith, or fault	Bradley voluntarily produced documents and therefore acted without malicious intent	Bradley’s unauthorized incursions, lies, inconsistent testimony, and likely withholding of materials show intent to thwart proceedings or reckless disregard	Affirmed: district court’s finding of bad faith was not an abuse of discretion
Whether defendants were prejudiced and dismissal was disproportionate	Bradley argued defendants suffered no prejudice and lesser sanctions would suffice	Defendants incurred significant time/costs investigating the theft; the record was tainted and future proceedings would be unfair if claims proceeded	Affirmed: prejudice shown; dismissal proportional given degree of misconduct
Whether plaintiffs had notice and whether alternative sanctions were considered	Plaintiffs argued insufficient warning and that lesser sanctions should have been imposed	Court held plaintiffs were on notice (motions, hearing, evidentiary proceedings) and considered alternatives but found them inadequate to protect integrity of proceedings	Affirmed: adequate notice and consideration of alternatives; dismissal appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts have inherent power to sanction bad‑faith litigation conduct to preserve integrity of the judicial process)
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980) (conduct tantamount to bad faith can support sanctions)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (dismissal for counsel’s misconduct is constitutionally permissible because client selects counsel)
Regional Refuse Sys., Inc. v. Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1988) (factors guiding dismissal as a sanction)
Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 1999) (contumacious conduct can justify dismissal; other factors lose force)
Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2008) (notice is a key consideration before dismissal)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (deference to trial court’s factual and credibility findings in bench trials)