Case against Bob Dylan dropped, and the plaintiff's lawyers are sanctioned

A woman sued Robert Zimmerman in 2021, claiming that he sexually abused her in 1965, when she was 12 years-old. You know Robert Zimmerman as Bob Dylan, the famous singer. She was able to sue Dylan under recent statutes that re-opened the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases. The case was dismissed after the plaintiff voluntarily dropped the claim and failed to comply with court orders intended to manage discovery. 

The case is JC v. Zimmerman, issued on August 13. Under the rules of civil procedure, you have to follow court orders on discovery, which includes exchanging documents, witnesses, etc. But when Dylan's lawyer served JC with demands, her lawyer did not respond, prompting Dylan's lawyer to file a motion to compel discovery. JC's lawyer then promised to provide discovery in short order. By now the district court was getting impatient and warned JC's lawyer to keep their eye on the deadlines. But the discovery violations continued, and the judge warned that it would take "appropriate action" if these derelictions continued. When JC finally produced records, they were paltry but did not include relevant emails or texts that Dylan deemed relevant to the case. The judge again warned JC's lawyer about this and threatened to entertain a sanctions motion for the deficient discovery. The judge ultimately said this to JC's lawyer:

I don’t know, Mr. Isaacs, how to tell you more strongly and more honestly that I am disappointed and dissatisfied with the productions that have been made and with your and your client’s conduct in discovery. I leave it at that. You’ve had every warning. You’ve had it oral, you’ve had it written, you don’t need me to repeat it again. For the love of God, produce these materials because you understand the consequences if you don’t.

These are strong words. JC ultimately agreed to dismiss the case. JC fired her lawyer, when appeared before the judge for a status conference. They told the judge that JC gave them three boxes of papers but would not allow them to take the boxes with them. When counsel told JC this was unacceptable, she fired her lawyers. In court, when the judge again read counsel the riot act about the discovery violations, JC -- who was present  in court -- agreed to dismiss the case outright.

Even though the case was dismissed, the judge sanctioned counsel anyway on the basis that they had not complied with discovery orders.The trial court blamed counsel for these discovery violations. The sanctions were $5,000 against one lawyer, and $3,000 against another. Dylan's lawyers wanted a $50,000 sanction.

Trial courts have discretion to sanction lawyers for violating discovery orders. The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Calabresi and Merriam) sustains the sanctions. While counsel argued that they did not violate any discovery orders, the Second Circuit disagrees, providing a detailed analysis in affirming the punishment. The Court borrows this principle from the Seventh Circuit: "in determining whether Rule 37 sanctions are warranted, the district court may “weigh not only the straw that finally broke the camel’s back, but all the straws that the recalcitrant party piled on over the course of the lawsuit.”