WPC 6o=O ~ODb`^ŌdԶ{$ϋhj}g ZXk%Bz#ϨUR54t/%_2&IU71i P:5 ԌZ{#%wV (é;-0Æ֛( tܯ!i-_{BEXEk&;4sAof;*֭/ǩdsׅ"~qsLQJ2ve_|g&I$ǩǚnʭN\/%C͜S%(ڕ߄m ZrM,Tr=Bh kŊZ'b*2$zlvty{*C%)UB/t0L47: >'A;DOG'lJMP S"V-Y)#])L`)uc)f)il- p9sTvmz}h[eSE<ԕ+[H(* ))En'C"""7Y}$tjf4 0h 0Afx#(N^ w4 m\  `*Times New RomanTT\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP%2A`ArialTTomanTTXXX2PQXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP%2A`ArialTTomanTT;2PQP%2A`ArialTTomanTTJ2PQP\  `*Times New RomanTT6\  P6QP%2A`ArialTTomanTTg2PQP(oo *Times New RomanTTXXPoo0oXohoX%2A`ArialTT'   )Zeinmax Outline: 2 (Kelley Friedgen0thomast .   Pr8page numberpage numberXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXC%2A`ArialTTC<;T .footerfooter  (#%        >4X` hp x (#>  <;T .headerheader  (#%        >4X` hp x (#>  T}r :Balloon TextBalloon Text  C%2A`ArialTTC        XXXC%2A`ArialTTC  Zu :Comment SubjComment Subject  C%2A`ArialTTC        XXXC%2A`ArialTTC  Z}r :annotation tannotation text  C%2A`ArialTTC        XXXC%2A`ArialTTC  dr:annotation rannotation referenceW \  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXC%2A`ArialTTC\  `*Times New RomanTT`u:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXC%2A`ArialTTCV}r :footnote texfootnote text  C%2A`ArialTTC        XXXC%2A`ArialTTC  hr:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXC%2A`ArialTTCH 4heading 1heading 1&    C%2A`ArialTTC         XXXC%2A`ArialTTC'      .)XXXXXX  _X  $(#%X$      XXXXXXXX        XXXX@    1  A      XXXXXXXX        $ X(#%$    B.` hp x (#%XB(Y2.$ []!XXXXXX  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(Y2.$ []!XXXXXX  (Y2.$ []!XXXXXX  ($     d=Thin BottomdxdC<< c ."XXXXXX  _3 T p x (#%X3 L  h :($      []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX        1  V[    VtXX3rVt  XX3rXXXXԀMr.Weaverholdsapproximately33%ofZeniMaxsstock,whileMr.Altmanholdsslightly  lessthanthisamount.Mr.ErnestDel,PresidentofZeniMax,isalsoalargeshareholderand x boardmember.VtXX3rVt  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  2  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀTheCourtfindsitinterestingtonotethatthePlaintiffsSupplementarybriefingtotheCourton  theDefendantsMotionforSanctionsdatedMarch26,2004,statesMr.WeaverenteredLeshers x officeonthisday toreviewtheminutesfromBoardmeetingsandthatMr.Weaver reviewed, @ andmadecopiesof,theminutes.Plaintiff&CounterDefendantChristopherS.Weavers X MemoranduminResponsetoArgumentsRaisedattheFebruary27,2004Hearingand   RequestingSummaryDenialofZeniMaxMedia,Inc.sMotionforSanctionsSeekingDismissal  ofPlaintiffsFirstAmendedComplaintDuetoDiscoveryAbuses,Mar.26,2004,p.7.Thisdoes `  notexactlymatchthetestimonyoftheplaintiffduringtheevidentiaryhearingheldontherecord ( x onApril1,2004.+l  XX3r +l(oo *Times New RomanTT j []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  3  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀTheCourtheardnoevidencetosuggestthatMr.Earlyorhisfirmengagedinanymisconductat  anypointinthislitigation.TheCourttakesnoteofthisdate,however,becauseitissignificant x  evidencethatWeaver,fromthebeginningofhispersonalmisconduct,wascontemplating  litigation.+l  XX3r +l B []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  4  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀ193A.D.2d424(SupremeCt.NY,App.Div.1stDept.,1993).+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  5  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at425.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  6  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  7  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at426.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  8  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  9  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  10  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at427.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  11  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.(emphasisadded).+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  12  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at428.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX        13  _[    VtXX3rVt  XX3rXXXXԀ916F.Supp388(D.NJ,1995).VtXX3rVt  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX        14  _[    VtXX3rVt  XX3rXXXXԀId.at393.VtXX3rVt  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  15  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.+l  XX3r +l # []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  16  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at393394.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  17  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at394.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  18  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at398.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  19  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at399.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  20  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at400.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  21  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at401.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  22  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.+l  XX3r +l # []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  23  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.(emphasisadded).+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  24  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  25  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀAstothepartnershipsclaim,theCourtorderedajuryinstructiontobereadattrialtomake  thejuryawareoftheimproperconductofPernaandPantaloneasitrelatedtothepairs x credibility.Id.at403.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX        26  _[    VtXX3rVt  XX3rXXXXԀ174F.R.D.319(S.D.NY,1997).VtXX3rVt  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX        27  V[    VtXX3rVt  XX3rXXXXԀId.at323.VtXX3rVt  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  28  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀThereisnoindicationthatthislosswasincurredwiththeintenttodeprivetheplaintiffofthis  information.Rather,Smithdiscardedallhisfilesupontheendofhisemployment.Id.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  29  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at324.+l  XX3r +l Q []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  30  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at326.NotablytheCourtheredoesnotindicatewhetherprejudicetothedefendantwas  presumedinthismatterassuggestedbythePernacourt.TheCourtsopinion,however,canbe x readtoinferthatprejudicewaspresumedbutthepresumptionwasovercomebytheplaintiff.+l  XX3r +l [ []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      3 p x (#%X3X XhX  31  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀSeediscussionsuprap.8+l  XX3r +l I []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  32  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀ775A.2d786(SuperiorCt.NJ,LawDiv.,HudsonCty.,CivilPt.,2001).+l  XX3r +l 2 []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  33  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀ794A.2d816(SuperiorCt.NJ,App.Div.,2002).+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  34  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at789.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  35  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at790.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  36  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at791.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  37  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at793.+l  XX3r +l Q []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  38  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀUnlikeinPerna,theTartagliacourtsclearlydonotapplyapresumptionofprejudicetothe  defendantsinlightoftheplaintiffsactions.TheCourt,however,findsitnotablethatherethe x partiesmutuallyagreethattheuniverseofmaterialsatissueislimitedanddefinite.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  39  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at821.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XBXXXXXXXX      X XhX  40  [    X X XXXX XX  ݀TheTartagliaIIopinionexpresslystateditdidnotprecludetheimpositionofothersanctions  nordiditprecludedefendantsfrompursuinganyfurtherremediestheybelievedappropriatein x lightofplaintiffsallegedwrongfulacts.  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX        41  _[    VtXX3rVt  XX3rXXXXԀ211F.R.D.423(W.D.WA,SeattleDiv.,2002).VtXX3rVt  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX        42  _[    VtXX3rVt  XX3rXXXXԀId.at425.VtXX3rVt  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  43  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at429.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  44  _[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at431.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  45  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  46  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at431432.+l  XX3r +l 9 []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  47  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀCaseNo.BC022365(SuperiorCt.CA,LACty.,2004).+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  48  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at11.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  49  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at13.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  50  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀId.at26.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  51  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀCounselforSSIatthetimetheopinionwasrenderedhadbeenrecentlyobtainedandnotthe  counselwhohadbeenpartiestotheabusescomplainedofbyDisney.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  52  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀAsashareholderinthecorporation,Weavermostcertainlyhadandcontinuestohavearight  toreviewthebusinessrecordsofthecorporation.2512and2513oftheCorporationsand x AssociationsArticle.When,aswasthecaseinthisinstance,hesoughttoexaminetheserecords @ inawhollyprivatecapacity,withoutfollowingproperproceduresandwithanaimtobenefit X himselfataforeseeabledisadvantagetothecorporation,hewasnolongeractinginhis   corporatecapacityand,assuch,hisaccesswasclearlywrongful.+l  XX3r +l s []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  53  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀItisthissortofselfservingrationalizinginwhichWeavercontinuedtoengagethroughoutthe  courseofhistestimonyduringtheevidentiaryhearingbeforethisCourt.Inlightoftheevidence x presentedduringthathearing,theCourtfound,asnotedearlier,Weavertobeahighly @ uncrediblewitness.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      VthX3r,Vt  54  Y[    3r3r3r3r  ݀Sometimesreferredtoasthe cleanhandsdoctrine. j []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      VthX3r,Vt  55  Y[    3r3r3r3r  ݀Thepartiesdidnotraiseorarguethestandardofproofnecessarytoresolvetheissuesbeforethecourt.  ThisCourtbelievesthatthestandardcivilburdenof proofbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceisthe V applicableandappropriatestandard.However,thenatureoftheremedyofdismissalorsomesimilar L disablingactionmightrequireahigherburdenofproof.Notwithstandingthisbelief,thisCourtnotesthat  thefactualmattersuponwhichthisCourttookevidencewouldhavebeenresolvedinthesamemanneras H setforthinthisopinionusingthe clearandconvincingstandard. y []!XXXXXX  XXXXX?+  hp x (#%X?  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  56  V[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀWequalifythisstatementastherearesituationsinwhichacourtwillnotreachitsdecisionon  themeritsofthecase.Mostcommonlyincludedinthesesituationsarecaseswhichhavebeen x  filedwithoutproperpersonalorsubjectmatterjurisdictionorwherethemattersbeforethecourt  arenotjusticiable.+l  XX3r +l  []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  57  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀTheCourthaschosentoreadtheplaintiffsuseofthephrase obtainedfromMr.Altmans  computertodenoteallmaterialsimproperlycopiedorprintedbyMr.Weaver.Itisclearfrom x theevidencethatthesematerialsincludemorethanjustdocumentsobtainedfromMr.Altmans @ computer.Webelievethiswasmerelyaninadvertenttypographicalmisstatement.+l  XX3r +l ` []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  58  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXԀLettertotheHonorableDurkeG.ThompsonfromRonaldL.Early,May13,2004,p.4,1.+l  XX3r +l \ []!XXXXXX  XXXXXB.` hp x (#%XB  VtXX3rVt      XX,3rXXhX      X XhX  59  Y[    +l  XX3r +l  XX3rX XXXITUS.,ԀPerna,916F.Supp.388,400(D.NJ1995).+l  XX3r +lUSIT.,(2)$ []!XXXXXX  XXX  0  3|x (>]$XXXXXXHP LaserJet 5M,,,,0!i1 aa0yweb0(U []!XXXXXX  _XX  `XX  INTHECIRCUITCOURTFORMONTGOMERYCOUNTY,MARYLAND  0p x (#%X0@..   CHRISTOPHERS.WEAVER p :  6 T p x (#%pX6 T  p : n  T Plaintiff&CounterDefendant  : X  T  p : B   T vs. p :  CivilNo.238840 , | 6p x (#%T pX6 p :  f _ZENIMAX_ԀMEDIA,INC. p :  P 6 T p x (#%pX6 T  p :  :   T Defendant&CounterPlaintiff  :  $  UEAz X x p @X@ExxxH.` hp x (#%T pXH   &    ````        MEMORANDUMOPINION      #[    ````'3     ` OnDecember13,2002,theplaintiff,ChristopherWeaver(hereinafter i   Weaver),filedsuitagainsthisformeremployer_ZeniMax_ԀMedia = Technology(hereinafter_ZeniMax_)inMontgomeryCountyalleginghehad a beenconstructivelyterminated.Weaverassertsheisentitledtoreceive 5 theOneMillionTwoHundredThousandDollar($1,200,000.00)severance   paymentasspecifiedinclause4.3ofWeaversExecutiveEmployment  Agreement.Themeritsofthiscasehavenotyetbeenreached.The a matterbeforethisCourtcurrentlyisapotentially_dispositive_Ԁmotionfor 5 sanctionsfiledbythedefendantcorporation._ZeniMax_ԀarguesthatWeaver  Y shouldnotbeallowedaccesstothisforumbecauseofcertainegregious !-  conductwhichbeganduringhisemploymentandlatercametolightinthe #" courseofdiscovery. % $  ` AtwodayevidentiaryhearingbeganonApril1,2004,andcontinued Y'"& onMay5,2004inconnectionwiththedefendantsmotion.Becausethisis -)}$( acaseoffirstimpressioninMaryland,theCourtinvitedthepartiesto +Q&* submitsupplementarybriefingspriortothefirsthearingdate.After ,%(, _consideringtheevidencesubmittedinthismatterandthepapersfiledby  bothsides,theCourtfindstheplaintiffsconductamountstocivil  vigilantismandagreeswiththedefendantthattheplaintiffsactionsought X tobarhimfromaccessingthisforum.Accordingly,ZeniMaxsSanctions , | SeekingDismissalofthePlaintiffsFirstAmendedComplaintDueto  P DiscoveryAbusesisGRANTED.  $   ` Facts:    ` ZeniMaxMediaTechnology,thedefendantcorporationinthiscase, |  wascreatedin1999bybothRobertAltman(hereinafter Altman),whohas P beenCEOofthecorporationsinceitsinception,andtheplaintiff, $t ChristopherWeaver.Accordingtotestimony,Weaverwastohandlethe H technicalsideofthebusinessandsubsequentlywasnamedtheChief  TechnologicalOfficerorCTO.Altman,alawyerandbusinessman,wasto  bethechiefadministrator.AltmanandWeaverwerebothmadelarge t shareholdersXX`XXXX         1     P XX` PԀinthenewcompanyandbothcontinuetoserveontheBoard H ofDirectorstothisday.  l  ` ThehistoryofWeaversemploymentwithZeniMaxisarockyone. !@  Bythesummerof2001,accordingtotestimony,theresearchand #" developmentdepartmenthadbeencloseddownandSeptember2001had % $ notbeenagoodmonthfinanciallyforthecompany.Disagreements,which l'"& aroseregardingWeaversteachingobligationsattheMassachusetts @)$( InstituteofTechnology(MIT)andtheexpensesassociatedwithhis  teaching,cametoaheadattheendofSeptember.OnFriday,September  28,2001,WeaverreceivednoticefromMs.JasmineFlores,whoworkedin X ZeniMaxsHumanResourcesdepartmentthatthecompanywouldno , | longerallowWeavertoteachoncompanytime.Thisisostensiblythe  P triggerthatsetofftheconductthathasthepartiesbeforetheCourttoday.  $   ` WeavertestifiedthatasareactiontohisconversationwithMs.   Flores,hedecidedtotakeanimmediatelookathisemployment |  agreement,whichhebelievedgavehimarighttoteachatcertainnamed P institutionsincludingMIT.Copiesoftheseagreementsweremaintainedin $t abinderintheofficeofG.GriffenLesher,ZeniMaxsGeneralCounsel. H WeavertestifiedunderoaththatheenteredLeshersofficeonthatsame  Fridayforthepurposeofviewinghisemploymentagreement.XX`XXXX         2     P XX` PԀInthis  samebinderwerecopiesoftheemploymentagreementsofAltmanand t Mr.ErnestDel,PresidentofZeniMax.ThoughWeaver,asamemberof H theboard,hadapprovedbothoftheseagreementsduringanearlyboard  l meeting,WeavertestifiedthathewassurprisedtolearnthatAltmans !@  agreementwasverydifferentfromhisown.Specifically,henotedthat #" Altmansagreementcontained lotsofperksandhadbeensignedbyDel.  WeaverstatedhehadbelievedthatheandAltmanhadintendedtobe  equalsinthisventureandhewasangeredtolearnthathehadbeen,inhis X estimation,deceivedbyAltman. , |  ` AngeredbywhathehadreadWeavertestifiedthathewenttothe  P officethatweekendandaccessedAltmansofficewithoutauthorization  $  usingamasterkey.Weaverstestimonyregardingtheexactdetailsofthis   incursionisnotreliableashisstoryonthissubjecthaschangedanumber |  oftimes.Hehas,underoath,bothdeniedthisconductandrationalizedit P withavarietyofexplanations.Assuch,theCourthasahardtimetaking $t hiscurrenttestimonyatfacevalue. H  ` Counselforbothsides,however,doessentiallyagreeonarough  timelineforWeaversillicitactivities.Weaverfirstimproperlyaccessed  AltmansofficeandloggedontoAltmanscomputerusingAltmans t personaluseridandloginduringtheweekendofSeptember29,2001. H WeaverhasadmittedthatheransearchesonAltmansemailfileslooking  l foranyinformationwhichincludedWeaversnameandotherinformation !@  thatWeaverfeltpertinenttohispersonalsituation.Wecannotknowall #" thathesaw,becauseevenWeaveradmitshedidnotprintoutallthe % $ emailshesawduringthisunauthorizedforay.Businessrecordsfrom l'"& Weaversattorney,Mr.RonaldEarly,however,demonstratethatWeaver @)$( firstcontactedMr.EarlyonMonday,October1,2001.XX`XXXX          3     P XX` PԀDocuments +d&* eventuallyproducedbytheplaintiffafterhismisconductwasbroughtto  lightduringdepositionrevealthatWeaveragainimproperlyentered  AltmansofficeonTuesday,October2,2001,andagainaccessedhis X computerusingAltmansidentifiersandwithoutAltmansknowledgeor , | permission.  P  ` ThesesamedocumentsdemonstratethatAltmansofficeisnotthe  $  onlyofficeWeaverenteredimproperly;documentsprintedunderthe   identifiersofbothMr.LesherandMs.CindyTallent,ZeniMaxsChief |  FinancialOfficer,weresubsequentlyproducedbytheplaintiff.Further P more,someofthesedocumentsbeardatesrevealingthatWeaver $t accessedtheofficesofothersoveracourseofseveralmonthsuntil H ZeniMaxchangedtheofficelocksinMay2002.Plaintiffscounselduring  closingargumentsconcededthatWeaverhadimproperlyaccessed  Altmanscomputer fourorfivetimesintotal. t  ` Ultimately,Weaverhasadmittedunderoathtoenteringtheofficesof H otherZeniMaxexecutiveswithouttheirpermissionorauthorization;  l accessingtheircomputersundertheirownlogins;searchingandscanning !@  theirentireemailcachesforanymaterialrelatingtohispersonalinterests; #" printingouthundredsoftheseemaileddocuments,notforcorporate % $ reasons,butforpersonalpurposes;andlastly,takingaconfidential l'"& documentfromtheofficeofAltman.Weaverhasalsoadmittedthathe @)$( reviewedsomeorallofthismaterialpriortohisfirstdeposition.Hehas  alsotestifiedthatthereasonherepeatedlyengagedinthismisconduct,hid  hisactionsandliedunderoathaboutthesedeedswastoprotecthimself X fromAltmanandZeniMax.Weaver,accordingtohistestimony,feltthat , | Altman wasouttogethim.Weaverhasalsostateditwashisintentionto  P disclosethathehadthesepilfereddocumentsafterAltmanhadhisown  $  deposition.WeavertestifiedthathefeltsurethatAltmanwouldlieathis   depositionandthatWeavercouldimpeachAltmanstestimonywiththese |  documentsinsuchasituation.Intheend,Weaversferventand P misguidedbeliefthatthesedocumentswouldprotecthiminthislitigation $t demonstratesthathedeliberatelyandwillfullyengagedinwhatthisCourt H canonlydescribeascivilvigilantismandrequiresthisCourttodismisshis  complaint.   ` LegalPrecedent: t  ` ThisisacaseoffirstimpressioninthestateofMaryland.Factssuch H astheserarelypresentthemselvesinacourtoflaw.Forprecedent,this  l CourtlookstothecaselawinitssisterjurisdictionsofCalifornia,New !@  Jersey,andNewYork,aswellastheU.S.DistrictCourtsfortheDistrictof #" NewJerseyandtheWesternDistrictofWashington.TheCourtreviewed % $ thefactsandlegalreasoningbehindsevencaseswithasimilarfactual l'"& predicate.Wenowturntoadiscussionofeachofthesecasesin @)$(  chronologicalorder. +d&*  ` DEUS., JoanC.Lipinv.RobertM.Bender,Jr.,etal. XX`XXXX      !   4     P XX` P      ` USDE.,Theplaintiffinthismatter,JoanLipin,hadbeenterminatedfromthe  AmericanRedCrossinGreaterNewYork(NYRC).Shebroughtsuitin X statecourtinNewYorkforsexualharassmentanddiscriminationagainst , | herformeremployer.Havingtakenapositionasaparalegalwithher  P attorney,Lipinwasseatednexttoherattorneyatahearingbetweenthe  $  partiesbeforeaspecialrefereetoarguediscoverymatters.Duringthese   proceedings,astackofdocumentsconsistingofhundredsofpageswas |  inexplicablyplacedinfrontoftheplaintiff. Thedocumentscontaineda P seriesofinternalmemorandapreparedbycounselcontainingnotesof $t variousinterviewswithdefendantBenderandotherindividualsemployed H orassociatedwithNYRCconcerningthisaction.XX`XXXX      "X   5     P XX` PԀWhilecounselargued  thematterbeforethespecialreferee,theplaintifftookthesedocumentsoff  thetableandsurreptitiouslyreadthemunderthetableandoutofviewof t opposingcounsel. H  ` Lipinstestimonystatedthatafterreadingthesedocuments: I  l decidedthatIwasgoingtoobtainpossessionofthesepapersformyown !@  protection.XX`XXXX      #    6     P XX` PԀDuringtheluncheonrecesstheplaintiffwenttohercounsels #" officeandmadecopiesofthedocuments.Immediatelyfollowingthe % $ conclusionofargumentsbeforethespecialreferee,Lipininformedher l'"& attorneyofwhatshehadlearnedandhowshehaddoneso,statingthat @)$( shewashorrifiedbythestatementsofthewitnessescontainedinthe  memos.Herattorneyrefusedatthattimetoreadthedocumentsuntilhe  obtaineda secondopinion. X  ` Twodayslateranotherattorneydidreviewthepapers.Hetestified , | hebelievedthesedocumentscontainedevidenceofa conspiracytoruin  P [theplaintiffs]career.XX`XXXX      $   7     P XX` PԀHethenconferredwiththereferringattorneyand  $  togetherthetwo     8 ` formedtheopinionthattheywereentitledtoretainthedocuments |  underaclaimofrightandthatanyclaimofconfidentialityhad f  beenwaivedinviewofthecircumstancesofdiscoveryofthe P documents!thattheyhadbeenleftunsecured,directlyinview : oftheplaintiff,inapublicarea,suchthatplaintiffhadbeen $t invitedtoreadthedocuments.XX`XXXX      %X   8     P XX` PԀ^` (#` (#   8 `  ` (#` (#  ` Plaintiffscounselthenrequestedasettlementconferencebased 2 upontheinformationgleanedfromthesematerialsandmadesignificant  demandsbasedonthedisclosureofthisinformation.Defensecounsel  demandedboththereturnofthepapersaswellasanexplanationofhow ^ theycameintotheplaintiffspossession.Plaintiffscounselrefusedto 2 complywithbothdemands,statingthathehadnocontroloverhisclient, !V  whocouldconceivablygivethedocumentstothemassmedia.XX`XXXX      &    9     P XX` PԀ "*!  ` Defendantsthensoughttosuppresstheprivilegeddocuments, $# disqualifyplaintiffscounsel,andimposesanctions.Aftertestimonyinan &!% evidentiaryhearing,defendantsmovedtoamendtheirmotiontoseek V(#' dismissalofthecomplaint.Readinghisdecisionintotherecord,thelower  courtheld Ihavetoconcludethattheactionsoftheplaintiffwereso  egregiousintakingthismaterial...soheinousthattheonlyremedy,as X muchasIdisliketodothis,istodismissthelawsuit.XX`XXXX      '   10     P XX` P , |  ` Onappeal,theSupremeCourtofNewYorkaffirmedthelower  P courtsrulingfindingthat itwastheplaintiffherselfwhoseizedthe  $  opportunitypresentedtoobtainanunfairadvantageoverheradversaries   inthislitigation.XX`XXXX      (X   11     P XX` PԀTheplaintiffhadarguedthatthelowercourthad |  exceededitsdiscretion,contendingthatthestatuteinquestiondidnot P providefordismissalofacomplaintasaremedytodiscoveryabuses.The $t appellatecourtdisagreed. Undertheuniquecircumstancespresented, H particularlythesortofwillfulmisbehaviorengagedinbyplaintiffandher  attorney,weconcludetheIASCourtdidnotimprovidentlyexerciseits  discretionininvokingthedrasticsanctionofdismissalofthecomplaint.XX`XXXX      )    12     P XX` P t  `  MichaelPerna,etal.v.ElectronicDataSystemsCorp. XX`XXXX      *   13     P XX` P  H  ` ThisdisputearoseoveracontractformedbyMichaelPerna  l individuallyandMichaelD.PernaandAssociates(alegalpartnership)with !@  thedefendantElectronicDataSystemsCorporation.Thiscasehasa #" complicatedproceduralhistorywhichisnotnecessarytoreviewforour % $ purposestoday.ItsufficestonotethatonJune6,1993,counselforthe l'"& defendantsconductedadocumentinspectionattheplaintiffsplaceof @)$( business.Therelevantmisconductoccurredatthisinspection.   ` Thefactsoftheincidentareasfollows.Defensecounselwere  situatedintheofficeofoneofPerna&Associatesemployees.Document X inspectioncommencedwithdefendantsrepresentativesandplaintiffs , | counselallpresent.Defensecounselhadbroughtwiththemthree  P briefcasescontaining,amongotherthings,workproductdocuments.Atan  $  appropriatetimeintheday,counselforbothpartiesbrokeforlunch.   Insteadofluggingtheirbriefcasestolunchwiththem,defensecounselleft |  thesematerialsintheofficewheretheinspectionwasongoing.Thecases P wereclosedandcounselclearlydidnotrelinquishanyclaimofprivacy $t overtheirbelongingsbyleavingtheminthisoffice. H  ` Whilecounselwereatlunch,Pernaenteredtheofficeinquestionto  makephotocopyforaclient.Pernawasawarethatadocumentinspection  wastakingplacethere.Accordingtotestimony,henoticedsome t briefcasesstackedontopofoneanotheralongsideofadeskandthatone H fellover,scatteringpapersonthefloor.PlaintiffsarguethatPernahadno  l ideatowhomthesebriefcasesbelongedatthetimethatonefellandthat !@  hisonlyintentionwastocleanupthemessofpapers.However,upon #" pickingupsomeofthepapershenoticedthewords weaseloutofandat % $ thispointrealizedthedocumentsbelongedtothedefendant.Ratherthan l'"& stopreadingimmediatelyPernas instinctivereactionwastobrowse @)$( throughthepapers.Hegatheredastackofpapersapproximatelyaninch +d&* andahalfthickandmadecopiesofthisstack.Thatheknewhisconduct ,8(, wasimproperisevidencedbythefactthathesolicitedhispartnerMr.  LouisPantalonetostandwatchatthedoor.Pernathentookthe  photocopiestolunchandreadthemall. X  ` Whencounselreturnedfromlunch,Pantalone,whowasunawareof , | theexactnatureofPernasactions,neverthelesswasabletoinformtheir  P counselthatPernahas somestuffthatIthinkwouldbeinteresting.XX`XXXX      +   14     P XX` PԀ  $  UponPernasreturn,however,heinformedPantalonethat unfortunately   everything[he]madecopiesofand[he]waslookingatisnothingthatwe |  dontalreadyhave,outsideofthatletter,which,youknow,stated P somethingaboutmanualsorwhatever.XX`XXXX      ,X   15     P XX` PԀPlaintiffscontendthatPerna $t thenthrewthephotocopiesaway. H  ` Pantalonethentoldhispersonalattorneyabouttheseevents.Toher  credit,theattorneyrealizedthatanethicalviolationmayhavebeen  committedandrelatedtheseeventstoplaintiffscounsel,Mr.MarkSoifer. t SoiferthencontactedPernaandPantalonetodiscusstheincidentandat H thistimelearnedthatphotocopieshadbeenmade.Soifer,uncertainasto  l whetherhisclienthasengagedinimproperconduct,contacteddefense !@  counselandinformedthemthatanunspecifiedethicalissuehadarisen #" andaskedforatemporarystayofallproceedingspendinganopinionfrom % $ theNewJerseySupremeCourtAdvisoryCommitteeonProfessional l'"& Ethics. @)$(  ` Theensuingopinionruledthatcounselfortheplaintiffshadan  obligationtodisclose thatthecontentsof[defensecounsels]briefcases  mayhavebeenreviewedbyplaintiffsduringthedocumentinspectionand X thatcopiesofthecontentsthereofmayormaynothavebeencopied.XX`XXXX      -   16     P XX` P , |  ` Upondisclosure,defensecounselfiledamotiontodismissasserting  P thatsuchactionwas theonlyviablesanctiontoredressplaintiffsconduct,  $  andunlesstheplaintiffsactionsaresanctioned,theentireproceedingwill   beirreparablytainted.XX`XXXX      .X   17     P XX` PԀDefensecounselarguedthatitwastheintrusion |  andimproperaccessitself,irrespectiveofthesubstantivecontentofthe P documentsthatwarranteddismissal.PlaintiffscounteredthattheCourt $t oughtnottoimposesuchaharshsanctionwhennothingprejudicialwas H obtainedbyPernasunauthorizedaccess.   ` U.S.MagistrateJudgeJoelB.Rosenissuedhisreportand  recommendationinthismatter.JudgeRosenfoundthatdismissalwasan t appropriateexerciseoftheCourts inherentpowerinextreme H circumstances,inresponsetoabusivelitigationpractices,andtoinsure  l [sic]theorderlyadministrationofjusticeandtheintegrityofthecourts !@  order.Henoted,however,itwasimperativethatsuchpowerbeexercised #" withrestraintanddiscretion. % $  ` Toreachhisdecisioninthecasebeforehim,JudgeRosenlookedto l'"& federalcaselawexistingintheFourthandNinthCircuitsconsideringthe @)$( factorstobeweighedinacourtsexerciseofitsinherentpowertopunish   theperpetuationoffrauduponthecourt.XX`XXXX      /   18     P XX` PԀInsynthesizingthesecases,  JudgeRosensetforthsixrelevantcriteriarequiredfortheexerciseofa X courtsinherentpower. , | E1` hp x (#%XE0 ` 0 ` %` % ` I. Theexistenceofcertainextraordinarycircumstances; P % % 0 ` 0 ` %` % ` II. Thepresenceofwillfulness,badfaith,orfaultbytheoffending  $  party;  % % 0 ` 0 ` %` % ` III. Theconsiderationoflessersanctionstorectifythewrongandto |  detersimilarconductinthefuture;P % % 0 ` 0 ` %` % ` IV. Therelationshipornexusbetweenthemisconductdrawingthe $t dismissalsanctionandthemattersincontroversyinthecase;H % % 0 ` 0 ` %` % ` V. Prejudiceandthepublicinterest;and % % 0 ` 0 ` %` % ` VI. Thedegreeofthewrongdoersculpability. % % K.` hp x (#%` XK ` ReviewingPernasconductinlightofthesesixfactors,JudgeRosen t foundthecircumstanceswere definitelyextraordinary.Heparticularly H notedfourfacts:(1)Pernawasabusinessmanfamiliarwithlitigation;(2)  l heknewthedocumentinspectionwasongoingintheofficeinquestion;(3) !@  hewasawarethatdefensecounselsbelongingswereleftintheoffice #" duringthelunchbreak;and(4)hepostedalookouttoensurehisactions % $ werenotimmediatelydiscovered.Thejudgeconcluded the l'"&  inappropriatenessofhisknowingandwillfulactisextremeinandof @)$( itself.XX`XXXX      0   19     P XX` P    ` Unsurprisingly,basedofhisformerfinding,JudgeRosenfound  Pernasconductwaswillfulandinbadfaith. X   8 ` ThisisnotasituationwhereMr.Pernainadvertentlystumbled , | uponthedocuments,andimmediatelyinformedhisattorneythat  f hemayhavemistakenlygainedaccesstothedefenses[sic]  P materials.ThisisascenariowhereMr.Pernaknewwhathewas  :  doing.Heknewhisactionswereinappropriate....His  $  intentions weretofindouthow[thedefendant]wastryingto   deceive[him]....Mr.Pernawastakingwhatevermeasureshe   couldtoprevailinthislawsuit.XX`XXXX      1X   20     P XX` P ` (#` (# 8 `  ` (#` (#    ` TheCourtalsofoundthatnolessersanctionswouldrectifythewrong f  perpetratedbyPerna.JudgeRosenfoundthatitwasPernasacts,inand : ofthemselves,thatconstitutedafrauduponthecourt,andthathisacts ^ necessitateddiscipline. 2  ` Hethenconsideredtheeffectsoflessersanctions,rejectingthemall,  andconcludingthatnothinglessthandismissalwouldsufficebecause  Pernasconductwasundeniably acalculatedschemetosubvertthe ^ litigationprocess.XX`XXXX      2    21     P XX` P 2  ` Regardingthenexusbetweenthesanctionimposed,themisconduct !V committedandthematterbeforetheCourt,JudgeRosenconductedanin "*! camerareviewoftheindextothedocumentsthatwereattheinspection $# site.Ultimately,however,theCourtfoundthatthesubstanceofwhatwas &!% viewedwasnotdispositiveofwhethertoimposesanctionsfortworeasons. V(#' First,theactitselfwasmateriallyconnectedtothematterbeforetheCourt  becausethissortofconductthreatenstheintegrityofthejudicialsystem.  Secondly,therewasnowayfortheCourttodeterminewhichdocuments X wereactuallyviewed.Theonlysourceforthisinformationwasthe , | testimonyofPernahimself. Simplystated,Mr.Pernastestimonylacked  P credibility.Histestimonywasinconsistentwithhiscertification,the  $  informationcontainedintheplaintiffsbrief,andthestatementoffacts   describedtotheAdvisoryCommitteebyhisattorney.XX`XXXX      3   22     P XX` PԀThus,theCourt |  concluded,therewasnowaytoknowwhathesaw,copied,orretainedin P hismemory,ifanything.Reachingthisconclusion,theCourtfoundthe $t nexusrequirementwassatisfiedbytheactalone. H  ` BecausetherewasnowayfortheCourttoknowwhatcontentwas  reviewedbyPerna,onecanneverknowwhetheractualprejudicearose.  TheCourtheldthatinsuchcircumstances prejudicemustbepresumedor t attheveryleastnoteliminatedastothedefendant.XX`XXXX      4X   23     P XX` PԀ H   8 ` Oursystemisbuiltonrulesandprocedures.Litigantswhobring  l mattersbeforethiscourtmustconductthemselvesinan !V appropriatefashion.ThebehaviorofMr.Pernacannotbe !@  condoned.Toimposealessserioussanctionwouldsendthe "*! wrongmessagetoPernaandotherlitigants....Litigantswho #" availthemselvestothejurisdictionofthecourttoseekredress $# mustconductthemselveswithintheorderlyadministrationof % $ justiceandtherulesofthecourt.XX`XXXX      5    24     P XX` P&!%` (#` (# 8 `  ` (#` (#    ` Lastly,theCourtlookedtothedegreeofPernasculpability.Here, V(#' JudgeRosennotedthatPernamadeanindividualdecisiontophotocopy  andreviewthedefendantsdocuments.Plaintiffscounselboreno  culpability;theiractionswereappropriateandlaudable.Itis,thus,Perna X himselfwhomustshouldertheburdenoftheconsequencesofhis , | misconduct.  P  ` HavinganalyzedPernasbehaviorinlightofthesixrelevantcriteria,  $  theCourtfound allofthefactorshereinhavebeensatisfied.Accordingly,   theCourtdismissedPernasindividualclaimandheldPernaand |  Pantalonejointlyandseverallyliablefortheexpensesbornebythe P defendantforfilingtheinstantmotionandlitigatingthisissue.XX`XXXX      6   25     P XX` P $t  `  WoleFayemiv.Hambrecht&Quist,Inc. XX`XXXX      7   26     P XX` P   H  ` Fayemibroughtthisactioninfederalcourtallegingthathisformer  employerHambrecht&Quist,Inc.(H&Q)hadunlawfullyterminatedhim  onthebasisofrace,nationaloriginanddisability.Defendantsmovedto t dismisshiscomplaintor,alternatively,tosuppressevidencewhichthey H arguedFayemihadstolenfromthecompanytheweekendpriortohis  l dismissal.ItwasundisputedthatFayemihadenteredtheofficethat !@  weekendandobtainedinformationaboutemploymentbonusesfromthe #" computerfilesofhissupervisor,D.LarrySmith,makingandretaining % $  copiesofthisinformationforhimself.Fayemitestifiedthathecopiedthis l'"& informationbecause hewasafraidthatitwouldotherwisebedestroyed.XX`XXXX      8   27     P XX` PԀ   Inthiscase,Fayemisbeliefwasborneoutasthisinformationwas  subsequentlydiscardedwhenSmithlefthisemploymentatH&QinMay X 1995.XX`XXXX      9X   28     P XX` PԀThoughthissuithadbeenfiledinOctober1994,noonerequested , | thatSmithpreserveanydocumentsatanytime.  P  ` Initsdiscussionofinherentauthority,theCourt,citingavarietyof  $  authority,stated courtsnecessarilyhavetheinherentequitablepowerover   theirownprocesstopreventabuses,oppressionandinjustices.XX`XXXX      :   29     P XX` PԀGiven |  this,theCourtheldthatacourtwaspermittedtouseitsinherentequitable P powerstosanctionapartyseekingtouseevidenceinlitigationthatwas $t wrongfullyobtained. H  ` Turningtotheappropriatesanction,theCourtconcludedthat  dismissalinthiscasewasnotwarranted.WhiletheCourtfoundthat  Fayemisconductwasclearlywrongfulandsufficientlyserioustowarranta t significantsanction,theCourtwrote thereislittle,ifany,continuing H prejudicetothedefendants.XX`XXXX      ;   30     P XX` PԀTheCourtfoundtheultimatediscoverability  l oftheinformationinquestiondistinguishedthiscasefromLipinv.Bender.XX`XXXX      <   31     P XX` PԀ !@  Additionally,theCourtfoundthealternativeremedyofprecludingtheuse #" ofthisinformationinlitigationwouldbesufficienttoredresstheplaintiffs % $ misconductinthismatter.TheCourt,however,refusedtoimposethis  sanctionbecausethedefendant,thoughonadequatenoticeofFayemis  suit,failedtotaketheappropriateprecautionstoensureanyrelevant X informationwasnotlost. , |    `  MariaTartagliav.PaineWebber,Inc. &HerbJanick(I) XX`XXXX      =   32     P XX` PԀ& (II) XX`XXXX      >X   33     P XX` P  P    ` ThismatterwasfirstheardbytheLawDivisionoftheSuperiorCourt  $  ofNewJerseyupondefendantsmotionseeking,bywayofsanction,   dismissaloftheplaintiffscomplaint,theimmediatereturnofalldocuments |  atissue,apermanentinjunctionagainsttheplaintiffsdisseminationofthe P documentsortheircontents,andattorneysfees.Thelowercourtdecision $t wassubsequentlyappealedtotheAppellateDivisionoftheSuperiorCourt H ofNewJersey.Forthepurposesofthisdiscussionthecaseswillbe  denotedTartagliaIandTartagliaII,respectively.   ` MariaTartagliafiledsuitagainstPaineWebber,Inc.,herformer t employer,onthegroundsthatherterminationwasunlawfulandviolativeof H NewJerseysLawAgainstDiscrimination.PaineWebbersoughtthese  l sanctionsuponlearningoftheplaintiffspossessionoffiveseparateitems, !@  thoughtheTartagliaICourtonlyfoundtwoofthedocumentsrelevant. #" Thesetwodocumentswere(1)a1997memotofileauthoredbydefendant % $ Janickand(2)acomputergeneratedemployeeinformationlist.Tartaglia l'"& obtainedtheformerduringheremploymentandthelatterafterher @)$( termination.   ` The1997Memowaslocatedwithinthecomputerand,accordingto  itsauthorJanick,shouldhavebeenaccessibleonlybyhimandthe X companyscomputersystemsadministrator.Tartagliacontendedthefile , | wasamongotherwordprocessingfilesthatappearedonhercomputer  P screeninherPaineWebberoffice.Regardless,itwasundisputedthat  $  thefilewasclearlylabeled CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYWORK   PRODUCTMATERIAL.TheTartagliaICourtfoundthisdocumentwasin |  nowayrelatedtotheplaintiffsemploymentresponsibilities.Furthermore, P itheldplaintiffhadappropriatedthisdocumentforpurelyselfserving $t motives,namely toadvanceandsupportthelegalclaimssheanticipated H bringingagainstdefendant.XX`XXXX      ?   34     P XX` PԀThecomputergeneratedemployee  informationlistwassenttoplaintiffbyanundisclosed friendwithinthe  companyslegaldepartment.Again,theTartagliaICourtfoundplaintiff t appropriatedthisinformationbecauseshethoughtitwouldbeusefulin H pursuinglegalclaimsagainstherformeremployer.  l  ` TheTartagliaICourtfoundplaintiffsconductconstituted anactof !@  lawlessnesswithclearcriminalimplications.XX`XXXX      @X   35     P XX` PԀFurthermore,theCourt #" wrote: Plaintiff,whonowstandsbeforethiscourtseekingvindicationof % $ herlegalrights,showedacallousdisregardfortherightsofothersandan l'"& unflinchingwillingnesstosubordinatetheirintereststoserveherown @)$( needs.XX`XXXX      A   36     P XX` PԀInspiteofthesefindings,theCourtstruggledwiththe  appropriatesanctiontoimposebecauseitconcludedthemisconducthere  occurred prelitigation.TheTartagliaICourtchose,therefore,tofashion X itssanctionwithreferencetothreeguidingprinciples.Thesanctionmust , | promoteandsafeguardthepoliciesofuniformity,predictability,and  P securitywhichprovidefortheefficientandorderlyadministrationofcivil  $  disputes.Additionally,itmustremovethetaintthisevidencewouldimpart   tothejudicialprocessifpermittedtobeincludedintheplaintiffscase. |  Lastly, itmustdeterthistypeofunilateral,selfhelp,lawlessbehavior.XX`XXXX      BX   37     P XX` P P  ` GuidedbytheseprinciplestheTartagliaICourtrefusedtodismiss $t thecomplaintbutdidexcludefromtrialtheevidencegatheredpursuantto H plaintiffslawlessprelitigationactivities.Onappeal,however,theTartaglia  IICourtreversedthelowercourtsholding.   ` Theappellatecourt,whilenotingthelowercourtsrulingwas t consistentwiththepoliciesofprotectingjudicialintegrityanddeterring H litigantselfhelp,neverthelessruledthatthesuppressionoftherelevant  l evidencewasunwarrantedinthiscase.TheTartagliaIICourtreachedthis !@  conclusiononthebasisoftwogeneralcontentions.First,theCourtfound #" thedefendantsinthiscasewerenotsubstantiallyprejudiced.XX`XXXX      C    38     P XX` PԀTheplaintiff % $ didnotdestroyordeprivethedefendantsofthetwodocumentsatissue, l'"& whichatalltimesremainedwithinthepossessionofthedefendants.  FurthermoretheTartagliaIICourtcouldnotpinpointanysortofunfair  advantagegainedbytheplaintiffthroughherpossessionofthese X documents.Secondly,theCourtheldtherewas nobasisinthese , | circumstancestosuppressanyevidencewhichtendstoprecludethe  P developmentofthetrueandrelevantfacts,particularlywhenthe  $  documentsareinevitablydiscoverable.XX`XXXX      D   39     P XX` PԀTheCourtnotedillegally   obtainedevidenceisgenerallydeemedinadmissibleonlyinthecontextof |  criminalprosecutions.Thepolicyrationalebehindsuchsuppressionisto P deterpoliceandgovernmentofficialsfrominfringingtheconstitutional $t rightsofindividuals.Ascivillitigationdoesnotpresentthissame H constitutionalthreat,theTartagliaIICourtfoundthesignificanceofthe  methodbywhichtheplaintiffobtainedthesematerialsfailedtoovercome  thesignificanceoftheirprobativevalueattrial.Theappellatecourt t specificallyhighlightedthatthelowercourthadfoundthetwodocuments H wouldhavebeendiscoverableinthenormalcourseoflitigation.Basedon  l thislineofreasoningtheTartagliaIICourtreversedthelowercourts !@  suppressionorderandremandedthecase.XX`XXXX      EX   40     P XX` P #"  `  RahnD.Jackson,etal.v.MicrosoftCorp. XX`XXXX      F   41     P XX` P % $  ` Mr.JacksonwasanemployeeatMicrosoftuntilhelefthisposition l'"& therein2000andwenttoworkforitscompetitor,SunMicrosystems.He  subsequentlyfiledsuitinfederaldistrictcourtinCaliforniaagainsthis  formeremployerallegingviolationsofTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsAct. X  ` Tenmonthsafterhisdeparturefromthedefendantcorporation,the , | plaintiffsatforadeposition.Atthatdeposition,plaintiffturnedoverto  P Microsoftmaterialsthathadbeenstolenfromthecompany,someofwhich  $  weredocumentsthathadbeenalteredorpartiallydestroyed.Inresponse   thedefendantfiledamotiontodismissasasanction.TheCourtultimately |  grantedthismotionfindingthatJacksonhadnotonlyunlawfullyobtained P proprietarymaterialsfromMicrosoftbutalsohad perpetuatedalengthy $t seriesofelaboratemisrepresentationsandliestoboththeCourtand H counsel.XX`XXXX      G   42     P XX` P   ` OverthecourseoftwoevidentiaryhearingstheCourtdetermined  thatJacksonhadinappropriatelyacquiredtwocompactdiscs(CDs) t containingaround10,000emailmessages,someofwhichcontained H significantamountsofprivilegedandothersensitiveinformation,including  l tradesecretes,confidentialemploymentinformation,andattorneyclient !@  communicationsbetweenmanagementofficialsandcounsel.Among #" theseemailswerecommunicationsconcerningJacksonsjobperformance. % $  ` Theplaintifffirstdisclosedtothedefendantthesematerialswerein @)$( hispossessionduringthefirstdayofhisdeposition.Hethenturnedthe +d&* firstCDovertoMicrosoftthatdayandthesecondCDonthesecondday  ofhisdepositionalongwiththeharddrivetohislaptopcomputerandall  hardcopiesofanyandallMicrosoftfilesinhispossessionasrequestedby X thedefendant.ExpertslatertestifiedthattheyhaddeterminedtheCDs , | hadbeencreatedthedaybeforeJacksonleftMicrosoftandthatthe  P informationcontainedthereinhadbeencopiedtoJacksonslaptop  $  computerlaterthatsameevening.InadditiontotheCDinformation,   Jacksonturnedoverhardcopiesofemailsthatwerenotcontainedonthe |  CDs.Alloftheseemailshadthetopportionofthedocumentremovedso P thatonecouldnotidentifyfromwhosecomputertheyhadbeenprinted. $t Alsoamongthehardcopieswerepersonnelrecordsrelatingtovarious H MicrosoftemployeesthatwerenotsavedontheCDs.   ` DuringhisdepositionJacksonprovidedhighlyinconsistenttestimony  regardingthemannerinwhichheobtainedthesevariousmaterialsandthe t mannerinwhichseveralofthedocumentshadbeenalteredanddamaged. H Laterinasworndeclarationinoppositiontothedefendantsmotionto  l dismiss,Jacksonsstatementsconflictedwithstatementshemadewhile !@  underoathatothertimesduringthelitigation.Jacksondidadmitto #" reviewingthecontentoftheCDsandrecognizingthatsomeofthe % $ materialswereattorneyclientcommunicationsandpersonnelinformation. l'"& Healsostatedsomeofthematerialssupportedtheclaimsatissueinthis @)$(  litigation.Atthesecondevidentiaryhearing,Jackson providedyet +d&* anotherversionofeventssurroundinghisacquisitionoftheCDs.XX`XXXX      H   43     P XX` PԀ   Nevertheless,theCourtreachedseveralconclusionsbaseduponthe  recordbeforeit. X   8 ` Mr.Jacksonsconductwaswillfulandexemplifiesthebadfaith , | withwhichhehaspursuedthislitigation.Althoughtheparties  f havebickeredformonthsovertheexactmannerinwhichMr.  P Jacksonobtained[thematerialontheCDs],therearesomefacts  :  whicharebeyonddispute.Mr.Jacksonreceived10,000Emails  $  fromanunknownsource.ThoseEmailsincludedMicrosofts   proprietarysecrets,Microsoftsconfidentialattorneyclientwork   product,andconfidentialinformationregardingtheevaluationand   compensationofotherMicrosoftemployees.Mr.Jacksonpaid |  $1,000fortheseCDs.XX`XXXX      IX   44     P XX` Pf ` (#` (# 8 `  ` (#` (#    ` TheCourtlookedtoNinthCircuitprecedentwhichsetforthafive : factoranalysisgoverningacourtsinherentpowertosanctiondiscovery ^ violations.AsstatedinAnhaeuserBusch,Inc.v.NaturalBeverage 2 Distributors,69F.3d337,348(9thCir.1995),thesefivefactorsare (1)the  publicsinterestinexpeditiousresolutionoflitigation;(2)thecourtsneedto  manageitsdocket;(3)theriskofprejudicetothepartyseekingsanctions; ^ (4)thepublicpolicyfavoringdispositionofcasesontheirmerits;and(5) 2 theavailabilityoflessdrasticsanctions.TheJacksonopinionemphasized !V prejudiceandtheavailabilitylessersanctionsasthe keyfactors.XX`XXXX      J    45     P XX` PԀ "*! UltimatelytheCourtfoundJacksonsongoingconducthighlyprejudicial $# andheldthatnolessersanctionwasavailabletorectifyhiswrongdoing. &!%   8 ` ...Mr.Jacksonsconductinobtaining(andinsomecases V(#' altering)thisvastquantityofMicrosoftsdatawasegregiousinthe @)$( extreme.Atheftonthisscalewouldbesufficientreasontojustify  dismissal.See,generally,Pernav.Elec.DataSys.Corp.[citation  omitted].Plaintiffssecretivebehaviorandclearrelianceonthe  stolendocumentsinthepreparationofhiscaseonlymakes n dismissalmoreappropriate.Sadly,Mr.Jacksonsmisconductdid X notceasewhenhefinallyturnedoverthestolenmaterialstotheir B  rightfulowner.Beginningatleastwithhisdeposition,Mr.Jackson , | toldanevermoreelaborateseriesofliesabouthismisconduct.  f ThisbeganwithMr.Jacksonsperjuredstatementsathis  P deposition,andcontinuedthroughasworndeclarationandtwo  :  separateevidentiaryhearings. $ ` (#` (# 8 `  ` (#` (# 8 ` ...Courtshaveinherentpowertodismissanactionwhenaparty   haswillfullydeceivedthecourtandengagedinconductutterly   inconsistentwiththeorderlyadministrationofjustice.Mr. |  Jacksonsattorney...urgedtheCourt nottocutoff[Mr. f  Jacksons]abilitytoseekjustice.BasedonMr.Jacksons P astonishingpatternofdeceptiveactsandfraudulenttestimony, : theCourtfindsnoassurancethatatrialinthismatterwould $t indeedbeafactfindingendeavor.XX`XXXX      K   46     P XX` P^` (#` (# 8 `  ` (#` (#    `  StephenSlesinger,Inc.v.TheWaltDisneyCo. XX`XXXX      LX   47     P XX` P 2  ` TheunderlyingsuitbetweenStephenSlesinger,Inc.[SSI]andthe  WaltDisneyCo.[Disney]pertainedtocontractualagreementsbetweenthe  twocompanies.Evidencedemonstratedthatatsomepointafter ^ commencingthislitigation,SSIhiredaninvestigator,Mr.TerrySands,to 2 procureDisneydocumentsoutsideoftheregularcourseofdiscovery. !V ThesedocumentswerethengiventoSSIslawyersandMr.David "*! Bentson,thehusbandofMs.PattySlesinger,SSIssoleshareholder. $# Fromthesesurreptitiousforays,primarilyintovariousdumpstersandtrash &!% collectionsites,SandsretrievedanumberofprivilegedDisneydocuments V(#' relevanttothissuit,whichSSIlawyersacceptedandthenutilizedto **z%) prepareforthecase.Therewasclearevidenceofaconspiracytoprevent  thediscoveryofthisconduct.TheCourtexpresslydisavowedSSIs  representationsthatthesematerialswerelawfullyobtainedandflatly X doubtedthatallinvolveddocumentshadeitherbeendisclosedtotheCourt , | ordiscardedbySSI.  P  ` SSIjustifieditsactionsbystatingthatitwasnotresponsibleforany  $  illegalactionsundertakenbySandsassertingitsagentshadexpressly   directedthatheuseonlylawfulmeanstoobtainDisneydocuments.Yet, |  astheCourtnotes, whileSSIcloseditseyestoSandsactivities,itpaid P closeattentiontothefruitsofhislabor.XX`XXXX      M   48     P XX` PԀIncredibly,SSIclaimedprivilege $t forthenotesSSIattorneysmadeontheDisneydocumentsthatSands H improperlyobtainedandSSIredactedallsuchmarginalia.Thisstance  justlyinfuriatedthetrialjudge,CharlesW.McCoy,Jr.Afterrecountingthis  behaviorinhisopinion,JudgeMcCoywrites: Onemustpausehere. t Conductofthissortstrikesattheheartofthejudicialprocess.Lay H personsknowthat.Lawyersdotoo.XX`XXXX      NX   49     P XX` P  l  ` TurningtoJudgeMcCoyslegalanalysis,hereviewedthestandards !@  governingcourtsinherentpowersinCaliforniastatecourt,notingsuch #" powerexiststocontroltheproceedingsandtomakeorders whichprevent % $ thefrustration,abuse,ordisregardofthecourtsprocesses.XX`XXXX      O    50     P XX` PԀThese l'"& powersexistapartfromlegislativegrant,butmustonlybeexercisedasa @)$( lastresort,whenlessersanctionsareinadequate.   ` Hethenevaluatedwhetheranyappropriatelessersanctionsexisted  anddismissedthemallinturn.TheCourtexpressedlittleconfidencethat X anordertoreturnallDisneydocumentstothedefendantwouldbefully , | honored.Norcouldthementalimpressionsandopinionsformedinthe  P mindsofSSIprincipalsbeexpunged.Thus,thewrongdoerswouldstill  $  haveaccesstothefruitsoftheirillicitacts.Neithercourtordersnor   curativejuryinstructionscouldremedythisinjury.TheCourtalsorejected |  disqualifyingcounsel.XX`XXXX      P   51     P XX` PԀThoughtheCourtfeltmonetarysanctionswere P appropriate,alone