Limone v. United States, 815 F. Supp. 2d 393

Limone, Tameleo, Greco, and Salvati sued the United States under FTCA seeking redress for a decades-old murder conviction; the district court previously awarded $101,750,000 in favor of the plaintiffs, which the government appealed and the First Circuit partially affirmed.
Plaintiffs sought Attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) based on bad-faith conduct by the government during discovery, particularly in withholding and redacting documents related to informant information.
The Court found a pattern of bad faith discovery abuses by the government, including persistent redactions, procedural blockades, and failure to provide unredacted documents to counsel of record.
Trial counsel for the FBI never had access to unredacted discovery; only the FBI’s general counsel could see them, and she did not appear in the case, undermining Rule 26(g) certification.
After extensive orders and sanctions processes, the court determined bad faith conduct existed, but not as to the government’s entire litigation posture; sanctions were narrowed to fees reasonably attributable to the bad-faith discovery abuses from March 2006 through December 2006.
The court awarded fees and limited costs to specific amounts for certain plaintiffs, with Balliro’s costs awarded and other plaintiffs not submitting cost documentation, concluding an overall award for the bad-faith-discovery portion of the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Bad-faith discovery supports EAJA fees?	Limone argues bad-faith discovery justifies an EAJA award.	United States contends no award beyond standard sanctions and limited to applicable provisions.	Yes; bad-faith discovery supports an EAJA award for fees traceable to that conduct.
Does FTCA §2678 25% cap limit such fees?	Fees should not be restricted by the 25% FTCA cap when traced to bad faith conduct.	The 25% cap generally applies to FTCA judgments regardless of bad faith.	No; §2412(b) authorizes fees beyond the 25% cap when tied to bad-faith conduct.
Can EAJA fees cover the entire litigation or only the bad-faith portion?	Fees could cover broader litigation as a remedy for bad-faith conduct.	Fees should be limited to the portion attributable to bad-faith discovery abuses.	Fees awarded only to the portion attributable to the bad-faith discovery abuses (Mar 2006–Dec 2006).
Are costs recoverable separate from fees given bad-faith ruling?	Costs should be awarded as prevailing party costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a).	Costs should be limited or challenged for reasonableness.	Costs awarded to the extent reasonable; Balliro’s costs awarded; other plaintiffs’ costs not granted due to lack of submissions.

Mullane v. Chambers, 333 F.3d 322 (1st Cir.2003) (necessity to explain bad-faith conduct with detailed facts)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (Supreme Court, 1991) (inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct; may exceed other remedies)
Local 285, Serv. Emp. Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Nonotuck, 64 F.3d 735 (1st Cir.1995) (bad-faith standard: frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
Jones v. Winnepesaukee Realty, 990 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1993) (egregious conduct includes stalling and harassment in litigation)
Maritime Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir.2001) (EAJA exceptions and fee-shifting context in government actions)
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court, 1959) (informant identity balancing test for disclosure)
Lucarelli v. United States, 943 F. Supp. 157 (D.P.R.1996) (FTCA/EAJA interplay; 2412(b) applicability to bad faith)
Havrum v. United States, 204 F.3d 815 (8th Cir.2000) (bad-faith awards under §2412(b))
Bergman v. United States, 844 F.2d 353 (6th Cir.1988) (government bad-faith may trigger EAJA fees)
Kerin v. United States Postal Serv., 218 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.2000) (Second Circuit test for bad-faith conduct)