Opinion ID: 157096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Sanction Defendant

Text: 23 Under the authorization of the district court, a United States magistrate judge sanctioned the plaintiff for violating a court order and Rule 16-402 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility. See Aplt.App. at 5-11. Mr. McGuinness does not appeal this decision. Rather, he asserts that the district court should have addressed misconduct by defense counsel. He contends that, by lodging a complaint with the magistrate judge, defense counsel chilled the flow of information necessary for Mr. McGuinness' case and thus improperly wielded the Rules of Professional Conduct as a tactical weapon. 24 We review decisions to impose sanctions for abuse of discretion and note that the [d]etermination of the correct sanction for a discovery violation is a fact-specific inquiry that the district court is best qualified to make. Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir.1992). Here, the magistrate judge decided that plaintiff's counsel improperly obtained an affidavit from an emeritus professor who was the full-time assistant dean of student affairs at the medical school and a member of the steering committee that made decisions regarding Mr. McGuinness' status. See Aplt.App. at 279. Plaintiff's counsel violated a protective order barring him from ex parte contact with this individual. See Aplt.App. at 86. The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing the sanction, nor does the record reflect that he overlooked misconduct by the defendant. Mr. McGuinness' argument is without merit. 25 AFFIRMED.