Opinion ID: 764161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sanction of Plaintiffs' Counsel

Text: 60 Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred by sanctioning their attorney for alleged misconduct pertaining to LIUNA's discovery requests. We review a district court's imposition of sanctions on attorneys for an abuse of discretion. See Palmer v. United States, 146 F.3d 361, 363 (6th Cir.1998) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990)). A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Id. 61 As Magistrate Judge Hemann stated, the history of the discovery disputes that took place during the damages phase of this action need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that [Judge Hemann] spent considerable time dealing with defendants' complaints about plaintiffs' failures to provide in some cases any, and in most cases all, requested discovery. With regard to these complaints, LIUNA filed a motion to dismiss forty-four members of the plaintiff class. In opposing LIUNA's motion, all except six of the plaintiffs cured the complained-of deficiencies. Judge Hemann therefore recommended that the district court deny LIUNA's motion to dismiss, noting the huge number of interrogatories defendants propounded. Judge Hemann went on to suggest specific action with regard to the six stragglers. She also suggested that the district assess, against all forty-four plaintiffs who were the subject of LIUNA's motion to dismiss, the attorneys' fees LIUNA incurred in filing the motion to dismiss. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, but ordered that plaintiffs' counsel, rather than the plaintiffs themselves, pay the attorneys' fees. 62 Nothing in the record leads us to believe that the district court misapplied the law or based its imposition of sanctions on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the imposition of sanctions on plaintiffs' counsel. III. CONCLUSION 63 For the foregoing reasons, with regard to the appeal, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in all respects. With regard to the cross-appeal, we also AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART 64