Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.
155 Cal.App.4th 736, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1604, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a plaintiff's action as a terminating sanction when the plaintiff has engaged in deliberate and egregious misconduct that renders any lesser sanction inadequate to ensure a fair trial.
Facts:
- In 1930, Stephen Slesinger acquired commercial exploitation rights for the Winnie the Pooh works from creator A.A. Milne, which were later assigned to his corporation, Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI).
- In 1961, SSI licensed certain rights to The Walt Disney Company (Disney), and the parties executed a new, comprehensive agreement in 1983.
- In 1992 or 1993, after suing Disney, SSI hired an investigator, Terry Lee Sands, to surreptitiously obtain Disney's internal documents.
- For at least three years, Sands trespassed on multiple Disney properties and the secure facility of its document destruction contractor, stealing thousands of pages of documents.
- Many of the stolen documents were marked as 'privileged and confidential' or 'attorney work product', including legal analyses of the ongoing lawsuit.
- SSI's principals, Pati Slesinger and Shirley Lasswell, and their agent, David Bentson, received, reviewed, and disseminated the stolen documents to their attorneys.
- Someone acting on behalf of SSI altered copies of some stolen documents to remove notations of confidentiality.
- For nearly a decade, SSI and its principals actively concealed Sands's activities and their possession of the stolen documents from both Disney and the court, providing false and misleading statements when questioned.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 1991, Stephen Slesinger, Inc. (SSI) sued The Walt Disney Company (Disney) in state trial court for breach of contract and fraud regarding royalty payments.
- In 2001, the trial court sanctioned Disney for destroying certain documents relevant to the case.
- In 2003, Disney filed a motion for a terminating sanction against SSI, alleging pervasive misconduct.
- In February 2004, the trial court held a five-day evidentiary hearing on Disney's motion.
- Following the hearing, the trial court granted Disney's motion and dismissed SSI's lawsuit with prejudice.
- SSI then filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- SSI, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal, with Disney as the appellee.
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 a trial court possess the inherent power to impose a terminating sanction by dismissing a lawsuit when a plaintiff's litigation misconduct is deliberate, egregious, and makes lesser sanctions insufficient to ensure a fair trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Willhite, Acting P. J.
Yes, a trial court possesses the inherent power to dismiss a lawsuit as a terminating sanction for such misconduct. This power is derived not from statute, but from the court's fundamental need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. The court found that SSI's misconduct was not only deliberate and egregious but also created a situation where fairness could not be restored by any lesser sanction. SSI's principals had reviewed thousands of pages of Disney's privileged and confidential documents, gaining insight into litigation strategy that could not be purged from their minds. Given SSI's history of concealment, deception, and alteration of documents, the court had no confidence that SSI would comply with any lesser remedial order. Therefore, dismissal was the only sanction adequate to protect Disney from further abuse and to preserve the integrity of the court.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in California by affirming that trial courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a case for severe litigation misconduct, independent of any statutory authority. It sets a high standard for such a drastic remedy, requiring the misconduct to be deliberate, egregious, and so prejudicial that a fair trial becomes impossible. The ruling provides trial courts with a powerful tool to deter and punish 'win-at-all-costs' litigation tactics like evidence theft and fraud on the court, while emphasizing that dismissal should only be used in the 'rarest of circumstances' when lesser sanctions are clearly inadequate.
