Opinion ID: 11688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Where the f--- is this idiot going?

Text: 7 Q. --winter of 1990/91 or you didn't? 8 [DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL]: Nonresponsive. Objection, objection this is harassing. This is-- 9 THE WITNESS: He's harassing me. He ought to be punched in the g--damn nose. 10 . . . . . 11 Q. How about your own net worth, Mr. Jaques? What is that? 12 [DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL]: Excuse me. Object also that this is protected by a-- 13 THE WITNESS: Get off my back, you slimy son-of-a-bitch. 14 [PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: I beg your pardon, sir? 15 THE WITNESS: You slimy son-of-a-bitch. 16 [PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: You're not going to cuss me, Mr. Jaques. 17 THE WITNESS: You're a slimy son-of-a-bitch. 18 [PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: You can cuss your counsel. You can cuss your client. You can cuss yourself. You're not going to cuss me. We're stopping right now. 19 THE WITNESS: You're damn right. 20 [PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: We'll resume with Judge Schell tomorrow. Thank you. 21 THE WITNESS: Come on. Let's go. 22 [PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Good evening, sir. 23 THE WITNESS: F--- you, you son-of-a-bitch. 24 After Carroll filed a motion to compel Jaques to answer questions presented at his deposition and to refrain from verbal abuse, the district court, on its own motion, noticed and conducted a show cause hearing to determine whether Jaques should be sanctioned for his abusive conduct at his deposition. The court considered imposing sanctions pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 37, but because plaintiff's counsel declined to file an affidavit setting forth his expenses and attorney's fees incurred, Rule 37 was inappropriate, as were other provisions that award fees or costs to the offended party. 2 Instead, relying on its inherent power, the district court imposed sanctions against Jaques in the amount of $7,000 to be paid to the Clerk of the United States District Court. See Carroll v. Jaques, 926 F.Supp. 1282, 1293 (E.D.Tex.1996). 25 Jaques appeals the court's order imposing sanctions, complaining that the district court abused its discretion by (1) resorting to its inherent powers to sanction Jaques, (2) failing to use the least severe sanction available, (3) finding that Jaques's behavior during the deposition constituted bad faith, (4) punishing speech protected by the First Amendment, and (5) assessing sanctions in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of sanctionable conduct.