Gonsalves v. City of New Bedford

Rule of Law:

An attorney may be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g) and the court's inherent power for deliberately causing a client to provide false or incomplete answers to interrogatories and for failing to supplement discovery responses, particularly when such misconduct concerns material facts relevant to damages and liability.

Facts:

• In June 1990, Morris Pina, Jr. died after being beaten in his cell by employees of the New Bedford Police Department and denied necessary medical care.
• By 1991, Morris Pina, Jr.'s family, including his mother Mary Pina and sister Delores Gonsalves, retained attorney Robert Griffith to represent Pina's estate.
• Griffith's firm obtained Morris Pina, Jr.'s medical records from Dr. H. Ram Chowdri on July 2, 1991, which revealed that Pina had tested HIV positive in May 1988.
• Knowing of Pina's HIV status and treatment at St. Luke's Hospital, Griffith decided not to obtain all St. Luke's records to avoid disclosing them in discovery, and he did not inform Delores Gonsalves of her brother's HIV status.
• In late 1991 and early 1992, Griffith assisted Delores Gonsalves in preparing answers to interrogatories from defendants Lawrence and Hoffman, which falsely stated that she did not know Morris Pina, Jr.'s general health condition or any hospitals where he had been admitted.
• Griffith failed to sign these interrogatory responses in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)(2) and subsequently failed to supplement them, despite knowing they were false and incomplete regarding Pina's HIV status and treatment.
• In May 1992, counsel for defendant Michael Pacheco, John Folan, subpoenaed St. Luke's records for Morris Pina, Jr. and received redacted records, which he distributed to all counsel, including Griffith.
• Griffith reviewed the records received from Folan, noticed the absence of the May 1988 HIV-related records, and inferred they had been withheld by the hospital due to Pina's HIV status.
• On December 7, 1995, during his opening statement at trial, Griffith told the jury that Morris Pina, Jr. was “healthy” when brought into police custody, a statement the court found misleading given Pina's HIV status.
• On February 13, 1996, defense counsel Sheila Tierney obtained Dr. Chowdri’s records and discovered Morris Pina, Jr. was HIV positive and that Griffith had known since July 1991.
• On February 14, 1996, in a lobby conference, Griffith initially implied he had only learned of Pina's HIV status the previous day, but later admitted to the court that he had known “right from the beginning” (July 1991).

Procedural Posture:

• Delores Gonsalves, as administratrix of Morris Pina, Jr.'s estate, filed suit against the City of New Bedford, Mayor John Bullard, and various New Bedford Police Department employees, alleging civil rights violations that led to Morris Pina, Jr.'s death.
• The case proceeded to a bifurcated trial.
• In Phase One, a jury found individual police department employees liable for violations of Morris Pina, Jr.'s constitutional rights and awarded $435,000 to his estate.
• Following Phase One, the District Court denied defendants' motions to vacate judgments, with the exception of the Chief of Police.
• In Phase Two, a jury found the City of New Bedford liable for the $435,000 judgment due to the deliberate indifference of its policymakers.
• After the jury verdicts, Mr. Griffith, as lead counsel for the prevailing party, filed a petition for attorney’s fees of over $800,000.
• The defendants also filed motions to vacate the judgments against them.
• At hearings on the post-trial motions, the District Court indicated it might vacate the judgments against the City and the Mayor in his individual capacity due to insufficiencies in the evidence.
• The parties subsequently agreed on a settlement, which provided that the judgments against the City and the Mayor would be vacated, the City would pay $555,000 to the plaintiff and her counsel, and the case would be concluded, except for the issue of sanctions against Robert Griffith, Esq. and Delores Gonsalves.
• The District Court informed the parties that the issue of sanctions, involving the integrity of the administration of justice, would not be resolved as part of their settlement.
• After Phase Two and before the settlement, the defendants filed a motion for sanctions against “plaintiff and her various counsel.”
• Mr. Griffith, represented by Janis Berry, Esq., responded to the motion for sanctions.
• The District Court held a lengthy hearing devoted exclusively to the question of sanctions on June 24, 1996.