524 F.Supp.3d 101
W.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Petitioner Adham Hassoun, detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, challenged indefinite immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. §1226a and 8 C.F.R. §241.14(d); the district court found the regulation did not authorize his detention and granted habeas relief, ordering release.
- The government appealed to both the D.C. Circuit (on §1226a) and the Second Circuit (on the regulation) and obtained stays; Hassoun was removed from the U.S. on July 21, 2020, mooting detention claims and prompting motions to dismiss and to vacate the district-court judgment.
- Prior to final adjudication the parties litigated discovery: Petitioner moved to compel and sought sanctions for the government’s failure to produce witness-credibility materials (notably from witness Shane Ramsundar’s A-file) and for alleged spoliation of visitation-video evidence; the court granted the motion to compel and reserved sanctions.
- The court ordered supplemental submissions; the government filed privileged materials ex parte/in camera, which the court reviewed and partially redacted for the public docket.
- The court: (a) held Petitioner entitled to fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) for the successful motion to compel unless an exception is shown (set a briefing schedule); (b) declined to impose inherent-authority sanctions, Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions for late disclosures, or spoliation sanctions; and (c) granted the government’s request to vacate the court’s prior §1226a rulings as moot on equitable grounds and directed entry of an amended judgment dismissing the petition as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney's fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) are required for the successful motion to compel | Hassoun: fees mandated for prevailing on motion to compel | Government: may avoid fees if an exception under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii) applies; requests opportunity to be heard | Court: Fees are required unless Respondent shows an applicable exception; set schedule for fee application and responses |
| Whether the court should impose sanctions under its inherent authority (admonishment/reprimand) for failure to produce Ramsundar credibility evidence | Hassoun: seek admonishment/reprimand, further discovery, possible hearing to determine bad faith | Government: denies bad-faith conduct; privileged/exculpatory explanations provided | Court: Denied—record insufficient to find bad faith or to justify inherent-authority sanctions; additional discovery not warranted |
| Whether Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions or attorney discipline are warranted for late disclosure re: Mohammed Al Abed | Hassoun: late-produced documents show quid pro quo and warrant fees/discipline | Government: late disclosure was harmless or substantially justified; no prejudice | Court: Denied—no prejudice shown (Al Abed never presented; gov’t conceded it could not meet standard); government explanation credible |
| Whether district-court rulings on §1226a should be vacated after mootness from Petitioner’s removal | Hassoun: vacatur inappropriate because government action caused mootness and equities disfavor vacatur | Government: seeks vacatur under Munsingwear/Rule 60(b) because appeal was mooted while pending | Court: Granted vacatur—applied equitable Rule 60(b)/Munsingwear analysis, found removal not clearly a deliberate attempt to frustrate review and equities favor vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (inherent sanctioning power is narrow and reserved for rare bad-faith circumstances)
- United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur of judgments when appeal mooted by happenstance)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (discusses vacatur principles for moot appeals)
- Milltex Indus. Corp. v. Jacquard Lace Co., 55 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1995) (district court must make specific factual findings of bad faith before imposing inherent sanctions)
- Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Feldman, 977 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2020) (courts should impose inherent-authority sanctions only in rare circumstances)
- State v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, 461 F. Supp. 3d 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (declined further discovery and sanctions in similar government-disclosure context)
- Hall v. Louisiana, 884 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2018) (district courts need not treat Munsingwear as the sole framework when assessing Rule 60(b) vacatur requests)
- Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., 817 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishes procedural review standards from substantive law in vacatur contexts)
- N. California Power Agency v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 393 F.3d 223 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (consideration of whether a party’s voluntary act caused mootness is central to vacatur analysis)