694 F.3d 155
2d Cir.2012Background
- WWP sued Shinkong in Nov. 2003 for damages and injunctive relief arising from a failed joint venture.
- Discovery resumed after a long dormancy; district court extended discovery but warned no further extensions.
- WWP disclosed its damages expert seven weeks late without seeking an extension; Shinkong moved to strike.
- District court struck both the late expert report and damages claim, concluding no further extensions would be granted.
- On appeal, court vacates the sanctions order and remands for reconsideration; summary judgment on injunctive relief remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions for late disclosure were proper? | WWP had no notice of such severe consequences and no opportunity to respond. | Late disclosure violated explicit court order and warranted strict sanctions. | Sanctions vacated and remanded for new consideration. |
| Appropriate remedy for injunctive relief after sanctions? | Injunctive relief is warranted due to irreparable harm. | Harm is compensable by damages; injunction not appropriate. | District court’s denial of injunctive relief affirmed pending remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodson v. Runyon, 86 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1996) (sanctions should target attorney, not party, absent strong justification)
- John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Prods., Inc., 845 F.2d 1172 (2d Cir. 1988) (dismissal as drastic sanction requires justification and consideration of lesser sanctions)
- Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1994) (dismissal appropriate after repeated warnings for noncompliance)
- Bambu Sales v. Ozak Trading, 58 F.3d 849 (2d Cir. 1995) (discovery sanctions must be justified and proportionate)
- Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd., 490 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2007) (without findings, sanctions of dismissal may be inappropriate)
- S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (nonconclusive factors for sanctions; district court’s discretion)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (four-factor test for permanent injunctions)