Opinion ID: 696250
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of the TRO

Text: 19 In its decision finding that Vann and Jacquard committed misconduct warranting sanctions, the district court stated that no sanction should be imposed which would have the effect of holding Jacquard or Vann in contempt for violation [of] the February 21, 1989 temporary restraining order, Opinion of Oct. 23, 1992, at 26, 153 F.R.D. at 52-53 (emphasis added), because the parties had stipulated earlier that Milltex waived any right to institute civil or criminal contempt proceedings against Jacquard with respect to any alleged violations of the TRO. 12 The district court nevertheless went on to consider Vann's conduct in connection with the TRO because such conduct was part of the pattern of subterfuge and defiance of obligation to the court. Id. at 27, 153 F.R.D. at 53. 20 The district court's findings with respect to Vann's response to the TRO do not support an award of sanctions against Vann. The district court found that Vann ignored the TRO in one of two ways: he might have deliberately refrained from telling Diamantis about it, but the probabilities are strong that Vann immediately informed Diamantis and they both decided to ignore the order. Id. at 21, 153 F.R.D. at 51. We cannot uphold the sanctions award on the ground that Vann did not tell his client about the TRO, because the district court found this scenario to be unlikely. 13 On the other hand, if Vann did indeed tell Jacquard about the TRO, as the district court suggested, then we cannot blame Vann for its violation because it was Jacquard's Alabama counsel who made the decision in the Alabama court to proceed with that action in violation of the TRO. 14 Like the findings with respect to the adjournment of the federal trial, the district court's findings regarding the violation of the TRO by Vann and Jacquard do not justify the conclusion that Vann acted in bad faith. 21