Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.
112 L. Ed. 2d 1140, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 1297, 498 U.S. 533 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposes on any party who signs a pleading, motion, or other paper an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law before filing. The applicable standard for this inquiry is objective reasonableness under the circumstances.
Facts:
- Business Guides, Inc. published trade directories and intentionally included false information, known as 'seeds,' to detect copyright infringement.
- Believing it had found 10 of its seeds in a directory published by Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., Business Guides decided to sue for copyright infringement.
- The president of Business Guides signed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Chromatic, supported by affidavits identifying the 10 alleged seeds.
- Shortly after filing, Business Guides' Director of Research, Michael Lambe, discovered that 3 of the 10 seeds were invalid.
- A subsequent investigation by the District Court's law clerk revealed that 9 of the 10 alleged seeds contained no incorrect information at all.
- Business Guides later explained that the errors occurred because an employee created the 'master seed list' by looking for unintended typographical errors after publication, mistakenly assuming that the company's original client questionnaires were accurate.
- The one remaining seed, a fictitious business listing, was found to have been 'planted' in Chromatic’s directory by a Business Guides employee who submitted a fake questionnaire to Chromatic.
Procedural Posture:
- Business Guides, Inc. sued Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The District Court denied Business Guides' application for a temporary restraining order and initiated an inquiry into Rule 11 sanctions.
- After hearings before a Magistrate, the District Court found that both Business Guides and its law firm violated Rule 11.
- The District Court imposed monetary sanctions of $13,865.66 against Business Guides and dismissed its lawsuit with prejudice.
- Business Guides appealed the sanctions order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's holding that Business Guides was subject to an objective standard of reasonable inquiry but vacated the sanctions award and remanded for reconsideration on other grounds.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the standard applicable to a signing, represented party.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose an objective standard of reasonable inquiry on a represented party who signs a pleading, motion, or other paper filed with the court?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes. Rule 11 imposes an objective standard of reasonable inquiry on any party who signs a court filing. The plain language of Rule 11 states that the 'signature of an attorney or party' constitutes a certification that the signer has conducted a 'reasonable inquiry' and believes the filing is well-grounded in fact and law. The Rule draws no distinction between represented and unrepresented parties, and its purpose of curbing judicial abuse requires that a signature, which denotes merit, carries responsibility for any signer. This standard is not inflexible; what is a 'reasonable inquiry' is judged by a standard of 'reasonableness under the circumstances,' which accounts for the different capabilities and positions of parties versus attorneys. Holding a signing party to this objective standard does not violate the Rules Enabling Act because the Rule is procedural, necessary for the integrity of the federal courts, and any effect on substantive rights is merely incidental.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No. Rule 11's certification requirements should not apply to a represented party, whose liability should instead be based on a subjective standard of bad faith. The text and history of Rule 11 indicate its purpose is to regulate the conduct of attorneys and those acting as their own attorneys, not to create a new duty for lay clients. The Rule's structure, which distinguishes between 'the person who signed' and 'a represented party,' implies they are different entities for sanction purposes. Imposing an objective negligence standard on clients creates a trap for the unwary, risks chilling meritorious litigation, and represents a significant departure from common law principles of malicious prosecution. This interpretation improperly extends judicial power beyond its traditional boundaries and raises serious concerns under the Rules Enabling Act by creating a new federal tort and altering substantive rights.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that a client's signature on a court document is not a mere formality but a personal certification of the filing's merit. It establishes that represented parties cannot completely delegate the responsibility for factual investigation to their attorneys if they choose to sign a pleading. By applying an objective 'reasonableness under the circumstances' standard to all signers, the Court increased the due diligence burden on litigants themselves, particularly sophisticated corporate parties. This precedent reinforces the gatekeeping function of Rule 11 and empowers district courts to sanction parties directly for carelessness, thereby deterring factually baseless claims at their inception.
Unlock the full brief for Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.