The penalty must address the harm the conduct caused
Justice Crane tied relief to the proven cost or lost evidence. Misconduct did not automatically justify repeat questioning. Knowingly pursuing barred claims could itself justify paying the opponent’s defense costs.
Preparation point
Connect each requested penalty to the proven cost or lost evidence.
How it played outSituation, action, outcome
- The situation
- Misconduct prompted a request for more discovery or money.
- What she did
- Awarded relief for the shown harm and refused unsupported additions.
- What made a difference
- Knowingly pursuing barred claims created recoverable defense costs.
In her words2 quotes
“This cross motion is clearly a tit-for-tat exercise that should not have been filed.”
Guggenheim Sec., LLC v Falcon's Beyond Global, LLC, printed p. 6. She criticized the opposing sanctions request as retaliation.
“a cautionary tale of what can happen when parties over-litigate”
Goureau v NBCUniversal Media LLC, printed p. 1. She described the history of litigation in several jurisdictions.
In the cited cases3 rulings
Guggenheim shifted half the specified deposition and motion costs incurred after warnings. Repeat questioning required identified missing answers.
Whealon did not show how the alleged loss impaired its ability to prove the case; useful inspections remained possible.
Goureau awarded reasonable defense costs for claims knowingly pursued after dismissal on their merits elsewhere, separately from anti-SLAPP defamation fees.