Attorney-at-Law

WHY THE CHOP? – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 03/16/2023 at 10:05

Rule 33(b), that’s why. I was puzzled (see my blogpost “Why The Chop?” 3/13/23), and did some research. Though rarely invoked, and my research showed only for grievous infractions, Rule 33(b) permits a sua sponte chop for proceedings that cause “unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”

The Rule doesn’t require a warning, but was the conduct here so egregious that no warning should have been necessary before the OSC? If the parties or their trusty attorney were recidivists, or ignored a warning, might it not have been well to spell that out in the opinion?

Yet another reason why some sort of guidelines for imposing sanctions are needed.

Advertisement

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: