Opinion ID: 657239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sanctions Against the Government

Text: 70 The court ordered the government to pay $6,916.64 as attorneys' fees and costs related to the Fay letter discovery process. It imposed this sanction under the Western District of Washington Local Rule GR 3(d), the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2) and its supervisory powers. The government appeals and argues that the sanctions were unwarranted and barred by sovereign immunity. 71 We review de novo whether sovereign immunity bars the imposition of sanctions. Hall v. Bolger, 768 F.2d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir.1985). A court may impose money awards against the United States only under an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287, 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819, 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983). There was no express waiver here. 72
73 Few cases discuss sovereign immunity in the context of fees or costs awarded against the United States under a local federal rule. The few courts that have discussed this issue conclude that a local rule is insufficient because it does not waive sovereign immunity. See United States v. 50.50 Acres of Land, 931 F.2d 1349, 1356 n. 5 (9th Cir.1991). 74 We hold that assessing monetary sanctions against the government under this local rule is subject to the same infirmity. There was no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. The court incorrectly levied sanctions under Local Rule GR 3(d). 75
76 We have not addressed whether sovereign immunity is waived when monetary sanctions are imposed against the government under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We find no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity under the rules. 77 We have affirmed money penalties against the government under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 37(b). See Mattingly v. United States, 939 F.2d 816, 818-19 (9th Cir.1991) (upholding Rule 11 sanctions); United States v. National Medical Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 910-11 (9th Cir.1986) (upholding Rule 37(b) sanctions). But Civil Rules 11 and 37(b) expressly provide for monetary sanctions. Because Criminal Rule 16(d)(2) provides no independent authority for a monetary sanction, we decline to recognize a waiver of sovereign immunity in the criminal context. 78 Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1481 (9th Cir.1989); see also International Video Corp. v. Ampex Corp., 484 F.2d 634, 637 (9th Cir.1973) (attorney's fees award ordinarily improper in the absence of a statute or under the most unusual circumstances). 79 Civil Rules 11 and 37(b) expressly provide for monetary sanctions. Rule 11 requires a court to impose upon an offending party an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party ... the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, ... including a reasonable attorney's fee. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Similarly, Rule 37(b) provides that a court may sanction a party for failing to comply with a discovery order by requiring the party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure to comply. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). 80 Unlike these Civil Rules, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2) provides no independent authority for a monetary sanction against the government. The Rule only provides a court with authority to prescribe such terms and conditions as are just to remedy a violation of a discovery order. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2). We think such language is insufficient to constitute an express waiver of sovereign immunity. 81 We also note that, in general, federal courts cannot ... alter the uniform system of cost-bearing created by Congress. Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1481 (9th Cir.1989); see also International Video Corp. v. Ampex Corp., 484 F.2d 634, 637 (9th Cir.1973) (attorney's fees award ordinarily improper in the absence of a statute or under the most unusual circumstances). Congress did not extend any roving authority to the Judiciary to allow counsel fees as costs or otherwise wherever courts might deem them warranted. Zambrano, 885 F.2d at 1481. 82 The district court said that it sanctioned the government to send a significant and strong message that it would not tolerate such misconduct. But, it found that only the Fay letter was clearly Brady material. It took the unusual step of allowing Woodley's attorney to depose those witnesses with knowledge of the letter. This cured any possible prejudice. 83
84 Sovereign immunity does not bar a court from imposing monetary sanctions under an exercise of its supervisory powers. These powers are judicially created to remedy a violation of recognized statutory, procedural, or constitutional rights, and to deter future governmental misconduct and protect the integrity of the judicial process. United States v. Simpson, 927 F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir.1991) (Nelson, D.W., J., concurring). 85 But the separation-of-powers principle[s] suggest[ ] that the creation of a rule by supervisory power can be justified only when a recognized right has been violated. United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir.1985). The sanctions imposed here were not justified because the court identified no violation of any statute, constitutional or other recognized right except, perhaps, Rule 16 as a basis for exercising its supervisory powers. The fact that Rule 16 allots specific remedies for its violation eliminates any justification for an exercise of supervisory power to create any other remedy for it. Id. 86 We realize that courts need to be vigilant in ensuring that all lawyers, including government attorneys, maintain ethical standards and fulfill their roles as officers of the court. But alternatives to monetary sanctions, such as holding the attorney in contempt or reporting the misconduct to the state bar for disciplinary proceedings, are more proper remedies. Also, an Office of Professional Responsibility exists to serve the United States Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.39-0.39e (1992). That office has the power to take appropriate measures for reported Brady violations. 87 We uphold the convictions and restitution order and reverse the court-imposed sanctions against the government. 88 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.