Opinion
NO: 99-0199, SECTION: "R" (3)
September 7, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before this Court is defendant Milliken Michaels, Inc.'s request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Because the motion fails to satisfy the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1)(A), the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
Plaintiffs Porter, Robinson, and Thompson, all African-American employees at MM's Metairie, Louisiana branch office, filed an action seeking to enforce their constitutional rights pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23:331 (West 2001).
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that they were placed on probation for failing to meet sales quotas while white salespersons were either not disciplined or transferred to various other divisions. They also alleged that they were paid less than white employees with less job experience, that potential clients were transferred away from them, and that they were denied employment opportunities routinely given to white employees. Plaintiffs also claimed that MM fostered a hostile work environment.
All three discrimination claims were dismissed on summary judgment. MM's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Eldridge Thompson was granted as unopposed. MM's motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs Terry Porter and Karen Robinson were granted after this Court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for their claims of discrimination, disparate treatment, or hostile work environment.
Subsequently, plaintiff's counsel, Alex O. Lewis, III, filed a Motion for Rehearing under Rule 60, which the Court interpreted as a Motion to Reconsider under Rule 59. In the motion, Lewis asserted that one basis for the motion was defendant's failure to "provide information pertaining to employees for a three month period prior to and subsequent to the employment of Movers" which was ordered by the Magistrate Judge during a June 8, 2001 settlement conference. (Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Rehearing, at 1.) In its Opposition to the Motion for Rehearing, MM presented evidence that it had complied with the June 8, 2001, discovery order and that plaintiff's counsel knew that MM had complied with that discovery order. (Def.'s Mem. Opp'n Mot. Rehearing, at 3, Ex. 2.) MM now moves for sanctions on the grounds that plaintiff's counsel violated Rule 11(b)(3) by basing its Motion for Rehearing on the false allegations that defendant failed to comply with the June 8, 2001 discovery order. Plaintiff's counsel has not filed an opposition to the motion for sanctions.
II. Discussion
A. 11(c)(1)(A)'s "Safe Harbor" Provision
The first question before the Court is whether defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions complies with the "safe harbor" provisions of Rule 11 (c)(1)(A). Sanctions may be initiated by motion as follows:
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision(b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe) the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the Court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
Thus, a motion for sanctions may not be filed with the Court until at least twenty-one days after service on the offending party. "This 'safe harbor' provision . . . contemplates such service to give the parties at whom the motion is directed an opportunity to withdraw or correct the offending contention. The plain language of the rule indicates that this notice and opportunity [to cure] prior to filing is mandatory." Elliot v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995) (vacating sanctions imposed by district court for failure to comply with the 21-day procedure).
Here, Lewis filed the Motion for Rehearing on July 27, 2001. Defendant sent plaintiff's counsel a draft form of the Rule 11 Motion on August 3, 2001. (Def.'s Mot. for Sanctions, at 3.) Defendant filed its request for sanctions with the Court fourteen days later, on August 17, 2001. Defendant's Motion falls short of the Rule 11(c)(1)(A) twenty-one day safe harbor. Accordingly, the Court denies defendant's request for sanctions.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.