Sandra Finch v. AllState Property & Casualty Insurance Company
705 F. App'x 783
11th Cir.2017Background
- Attorney Sandra Finch represented Elaine Armstead in suit against Allstate; Finch used photographs during deposition of Allstate fact witness Mark Gould, including an office photo and an outdated company "Steamatic Guide".
- Gould’s deposition and affidavit indicated Finch refused to explain where she obtained those photographs; Gould alleged she obtained a document from his office without permission.
- The district court denied Armstead’s motion in limine and ordered Finch (July 1, then again July 6) to file a sworn affidavit detailing how and under what circumstances she obtained the photographs and the Steamatic Guide; Finch missed the deadlines.
- At a July 7 pretrial conference Finch said she was traveling and needed more time; the court allowed a brief extension but Finch still failed to file the affidavit and the court issued a show-cause order for contempt/sanctions.
- Finch later asserted, at sanctions hearings, that she had relied on her Fifth Amendment privilege for not filing the affidavit; the district court found she acted in bad faith for repeatedly disregarding its orders and sanctioned her under the court’s inherent power, awarding Allstate $1,548 in attorney’s fees.
- Finch appealed, arguing (1) her Fifth Amendment assertion justified noncompliance, (2) the court failed to make specific findings of bad faith, (3) inadequate notice and legal basis for sanctions, and (4) the court ignored Allstate’s alleged discovery misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Finch’s post-hoc Fifth Amendment claim justified noncompliance with court orders | Finch: Fifth Amendment entitled her to refuse to file affidavit; she had a good-faith basis | Allstate/District Ct: Finch did not assert the privilege when ordered and waived timely invocation; noncompliance was unjustified | Court: Rejected Finch — privilege must be claimed when self-incrimination is threatened; her late assertion does not excuse failure to comply |
| Whether district court made adequate factual findings of bad faith to invoke inherent power sanctions | Finch: Court failed to specify conduct warranting sanctions; no adequate findings | Allstate/District Ct: Court made specific findings that Finch flagrantly disregarded orders and lacked adequate justification | Court: Affirmed — findings of bad faith were made and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Finch received adequate notice of sanctionable conduct and legal basis (due process) | Finch: Insufficient notice of conduct and legal basis; court failed to comply with Chambers requirements | Allstate/District Ct: Court issued show-cause orders, articulated factual and legal basis at hearings | Court: Affirmed — court provided notice and explained factual/legal basis for possible inherent-power sanctions |
| Relevance of Allstate’s alleged discovery misconduct to sanctions | Finch: Allstate’s conduct motivated her actions and excuses noncompliance | Allstate/District Ct: Sanction was for failure to obey court orders, not for alleged sneaking into office | Court: Rejected — Allstate’s conduct irrelevant to whether Finch disobeyed orders and acted in bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Sciarretta v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 778 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2015) (standards for inherent-power sanctions and bad-faith requirement)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Fifth Amendment privilege must be claimed when self-incrimination is threatened)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (limitations and due-process considerations when a court invokes its inherent sanctioning power)