轮到要制裁了,好几个律师都辩解说自己没怎么参与。有个说自己名字是别人加上去的,自己不知情。有的说只花了一个小时。
Sanction order Sidney Powell.pdf
Quote:Rule 11, however, requires service of only “[t]he motion” to trigger the
commencement of the 21-day safe harbor period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2)
(“The motion must be served . . . .”); see also Star Mark Mgmt. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd., 682 F.3d 170, 176 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Ideal
Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 322, 339 (N.D. Iowa
2007)) (finding that the defendant’s delivery of its sanctions motion met the
procedural requirements of the safe harbor provision of Rule 11(c)(2) despite not
serving at that time supporting affidavits or a memorandum of law); Burbidge
Mitchell & Gross v. Peters, 622 F. App’x 749, 757 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Star
Mark, 682 F.3d at 176 and “join[ing] the Second Circuit in declining ‘to read into
the rule a requirement that a motion served for purposes of the safe harbor period
must include supporting papers such as a memorandum of law and exhibits’”). As
Plaintiffs’ attorneys correctly point out (see ECF No. 161 at Pg ID 5805-06), the
Local Rules for the Eastern District of Michigan require a motion to be
accompanied by a brief, see E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1)(A), and judges in this District
strike motions not complying with this requirement, see, e.g., Williams Huron
Gardens 397 Trust v. Waterford Twp., No. 18-12319, 2019 WL 659009, at *1
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 2019). But this speaks to when a motion is filed. Moreover,
the issue here is not whether the City complied with the District’s local rules;
rather, it is whether the City satisfied Rule 11’s safe harbor requirements.