Dechert lawyers win sanctions appeal in 3M earplug case
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/64XTEBRPE5OB3KQWSOOTM3HRC4.jpg)
Dechert LLP
Follow
May 31 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday overturned sanctions against two partners at law firm Dechert after a trial court judge accused them of flouting a court order during a civil trial over 3M Cos allegedly defective combat earplugs.
A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the judge did not give the partners, Kimberly Branscome and Jay Bhimani, adequate notice before imposing the sanction and failed to consider whether the lawyers had acted in bad faith.
The 11th Circuit ordered the judge to reassess the penalty after giving Branscome and Bhimani an opportunity to contest it.
A spokesperson for Dechert did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An attorney for Branscome and Bhimani declined to comment.
U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers of the Northern District of Florida issued sanctions totaling $12,000 against the two lawyers after finding they willfully violated her instruction restricting the use of contested evidence during 3Ms closing argument in a 2021 bellwether trial.
Branscome attempted to use a visual aid highlighting the results of a study that the judge previously deemed hearsay evidence. During a conversation in which Branscome was not present, Rodgers instructed Bhimani that the evidence could only be used to impeach the credibility of the plaintiffs expert witness.
After Branscome used the slide during her argument, the judge found she did not adequately connect the study results to the expert witness. Branscome and Rodgers then both instructed jurors that they could not consider the accuracy of the study in their deliberations.
The jury found that 3M failed to provide adequate safety warnings about the earplugs, and ordered the company to pay about $1 million in damages to a U.S. Army veteran.
While the jury deliberated, Rodgers called a hearing to sanction Branscome and Bhimani for degrading the proceedings.
The pair appealed the finding, arguing that Branscome sought to comply with the instruction and acted to clear up any confusion during the closing argument.
Our Standards:
Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 3:52 pm