Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2) Analog “Costs of Proof” Sanctions At Issue.
Although we have many times posted on California’s “cost-of-proof” sanctions provision under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.420, the next case involves Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2), which states that “[i]f a party fails to admit what is requested under Rule 36 and if the requesting party later proves a document to be genuine or the matter true, the requesting party may move that the party who failed to admit pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making that proof.”
The district judge in an antitrust claim brought by Magnetar Technologies Corp. against Intamin, Ltd. and European affiliates denied a Rule 37(c)(2) request for fees/costs after granting summary judgment because Magnetar did not submit sufficient evidence of a causal antitrust injury. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in Magnetar Technologies Corp. v. Intamin, Ltd., Nos. 13-56119/13-56333 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2015) (published). It, too, found that there were potentially valid arguments which could have been made on both sides of the issue as to the sufficiency of evidence introduced to establish causal antitrust injury such that the failure to admit RFAs was not unreasonable in nature.
Comments