Opinion ID: 75882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Imposition of Sanctions against Munson

Text: 28 Following entry of judgment in favor of Tenneco, the district court issued an order directing Munson to show cause why sanctions should not be levied against her. 14 The court stated that it was issuing the Show Cause Order because various documents submitted by Plaintiff's counsel ... contain improper, offensive, and insulting statements which amount to little more than personal attacks on opposing counsel. R4-113-1. Specifically, the district court pointed to five documents that contained personal attacks on [opposing counsel's] character and his fitness as an attorney. Id. The court referenced the following: (1) paragraph 12 of the Thomas affidavit; (2) paragraph 5 of the Blair affidavit; (3) the Plaintiff's Amended Supplement; (4) the Mercer declaration; and (5) footnote 2 of the Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Exclude. Based on the offensive remarks about opposing counsel contained in the five documents, the court stated that it was considering the imposition of sanctions on Munson. Before it reached a conclusion on the matter, however, the district court noted that Munson was to have an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the court granted Munson twenty days to show cause why sanctions would not be proper. 29 In response to the Show Cause Order, Munson filed two documents, Plaintiff's Counsel's Response to the Court's Show Cause Order (the Response), and Plaintiff's Counsel's Supplement to Her Response to the Court's Show Cause Order (the Supplement). In the Response, Munson began by focusing on the race of the district judge and by expressing her inability to understand how the remarks made against opposing counsel could be considered offensive: 30 While there is no doubt that there are cultural differences between the court, a white male, plaintiff's counsel and [opposing] counsel, nevertheless, plaintiff's counsel shall address each and every item raised in the court's show cause order although she is not sure how these so-called attacks relate to [opposing counsel]'s character or his fitness as an attorney. 31 R4-117-1. After alleging that the various remarks against opposing counsel were justified due to his behavior towards her clients, Munson stated: Therefore, plaintiff's counsel can only view this court's show cause order as harassment of a civil rights attorney. There does not appear to be any other legitimate basis to such an order at this stage of the litigation (the notice of appeal has already been filed). Id. at 4. Munson further commented: 32 Plaintiff's counsel believes that the court treated us differently because of our race, and the nature of the plaintiffs' cases, Title VII or § 1981. Consequently, in response to our complaints, the civil rights groups are in the process of drawing up plans to protest the treatment that the African-American plaintiffs received before this court and other courts in the Middle District of Georgia in a demonstration before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (now scheduled for October 6, 2000). 33 Id. at n. 1. Similarly, in the Supplement, she urge[d] [the] court to go forward with its `consideration for sanctions,' explaining that she would welcome the opportunity to have this subject fully adjudicated, inasmuch as, she, the same as most African-American counsel and their clients, [was] often the victims of these types of actions. R4-118-3. 34 After the twenty days for responding to the Show Cause Order had elapsed, the district court issued an order levying sanctions against Munson. In its order, the court first stated that the responses of Ms. Munson [to the Show Cause Order] are purposefully misleading, dissembling, irrelevant, disrespectfully truculent, and unresponsive to the inquiry and concerns of the Court. R4-119-1. The district court then noted that, based on the record before it, there was no justification, other than an apparent and (within the context of the proceedings in this case) inexplicable hypersensitivity to racial differences, for the conduct of Ms. Munson. Id. The court went on to find that the record supported the imposition of sanctions for Munson's conduct towards opposing counsel: 35 Ms. Munson evidently views every obstacle encountered in this case as the product of racism. The charge of racism is both serious and demeaning. To level this charge against another based solely on subjective assumptions and the routine frustrations encountered by all litigators is more than bad manners; it is just plain wrong. An unfounded accusation of racism is the modern equivalent of fighting words intended to defame and hold up to public ridicule. Such conduct cannot be tolerated by this Court, which is prepared to deal speedily and firmly with any racist conduct relevant to any matter before it. And, just as the Court will not permit actual racism to invade its proceedings, so will it surely protect itself, its officers and its litigants from unwarranted and malicious accusations of the same. 36 The Court finds that the portions of the pleadings referenced in the Show Cause Order are irrelevant to any issue in this case. The Court further finds that the conduct of Ms. Munson in filing these pleadings was unprofessional, inconsistent with the standards of conduct expected by the Court of the members of its bar, and intentional, and done for the purpose of deliberately provoking unnecessary personal animosity and conflict between opposing counsel and for the purpose of creating an unjustified and false impression that the opposing legal positions of the parties were the result of racism on the part of defense counsel. 37 Id. at 1-2 (internal footnote omitted). As a result of these findings, the district court invoked its inherent power to oversee attorneys practicing before it. The court formally rebuked and censured Munson for her conduct, and the court stated that any future documents filed by Munson that were found, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, to contain such remarks would be stricken without an opportunity to amend or withdraw. 15 38