Opinion ID: 732315
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Inquiry into The Facts

Text: 21 In dismissing the complaint, the court found that [i]t ... seems highly probable that plaintiff's claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Later, in the Memorandum and Order imposing sanctions, the court noted that the obvious statute of limitations issue would have been resolved and no lawsuit filed, had appellant conducted an adequate investigation. D.C. Memo at 2. 22 Dr. Zuk left EPPI in 1980, and it is undisputed that EPPI continued to rent out the films in question for some time thereafter. Appellant, however, had no evidence whatsoever, other than conjecture, to prove that the films were being rented in the three years preceding the commencement of this action. The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 amendments to Rule 11 explain: 23 Tolerance of factual contentions in initial pleadings ... when specifically identified as made on information and belief does not relieve litigants from the obligation to conduct an appropriate investigation into the facts that is reasonable under the circumstances; it is not a license to ... make claims ... without any factual basis or justification. 24 Appellant's assertions in pp 36 and 37 of the complaint (in regard to EPPI's ongoing use of the films) are based purely upon Dr. Zuk's beliefs. 4 What little investigation appellant actually conducted did not reveal any information that the films were being rented out during the relevant period. Indeed, certain pre-filing correspondence with EPPI indicated that, pursuant to Dr. Zuk's earlier instructions, the library staff was cautioned not to rent any of Dr. Zuk's films. Nor are we persuaded by appellant's contention that further information would have been obtained during discovery. The Note cited above observes that discovery is not intended as a fishing expedition permitting the speculative pleading of a case first and then pursuing discovery to support it; the plaintiff must have some basis in fact for the action. The need for a reasonable investigation with respect to distribution of the film during the three-year period prior to the filing of the lawsuit is evident because of the long period allegedly spanned by the distribution.