Five thousand dollars is the amount claimed by the lawyers of Unibank in the USA from those of Haitians in the Diaspora as penalties or sanctions for having revealed to the New York court that they were asked to declare that the Unibank and Unitransfer have done nothing wrong, “white as snow”, in the case opposing the Haitian Diaspora to the United States on the question of funds collected by the PHTK regime and spent by the bigwigs of the said regime, their allies and their accomplices identified in several sectors, under the pretext of guaranteeing free education to 900,000 Haitian children.
As explained in the recently published text, Mr. Marcel P. Denis, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, American residents or citizens of Haitian origin, OLDILON S. CELESTIN, WIDMIR ROMELIEN, MARIE LUCIE ST VIL, GOREETTIE ST VIL, JEANNETTE VALEUS, GUETTY FELIN, HERVE COHEN and all other people in a similar situation, seem to have refused to take such a great responsibility: to clear these two companies (Unibank and Unitransfer) concerned in this file with a similar declaration to the American court.
This refusal to “clean Unibank and Unitransfer” is all the more motivated, according to Mr. Marcel Pierre, as the President and CEO of Unibank, Mr. Carl Braun, was sanctioned by Canada for involvement in related criminal enterprises. to gangs.
However, this revelation presented as “a disclosure by the plaintiffs of confidential discussions” was denounced by Unibank through its lawyers who, in a document served to the plaintiffs on March 1, requested that “the plaintiffs’ opposition be canceled in due to the improper disclosure of settlement communications, in violation of applicable federal and local rules, and the imposition of sanctions in the amount of $5,000 as a penalty for their filing in bad faith. “
Pending the decision of the American court on this specific request from the lawyers of this company in the banking sector, we present the essence of the argument presented to the court by the latter in support of its request. The entire argument of Unibank’s lawyers, available and accessible to the general public, can be consulted HERE.
Arguments from Unibank’s lawyers in relation to the response letter from the applicants in opposition (“Opposition”) of February 23, 2024 [D.E. 171] to the Motion for Sanctions of Unibank, SA and Unitransfer USA, Inc. (collectively the “Defendants”) pursuant to Rule 11, relating to the improper disclosure of confidential settlement discussions in violation of local and federal rules.
This inappropriate and unethical disclosure should be expunged and the plaintiffs’ attorneys should be sanctioned for their bad faith conduct.
In opposition, plaintiffs’ attorneys falsely reveal confidential settlement discussions to justify that they “never took defendants’ motion for sanctions seriously.” [D.E. 171, p. 1.] Aside from the baffling failure to respond to Rule 11 sanctions motions on the grounds that they did not take it seriously,1 Plaintiffs’ counsel’s inexcusable disclosure violates local rules and ensures this Court to uphold the underlying policy of the Federal Rule of Evidence. Rule 408 invoking the Court’s inherent power to strike and impose sanctions. See Fed. A. Obviously. 408.
Disclosure of Settlement Communications Violates Local and Federal Rules
Plaintiffs’ disclosure of confidential settlement discussions constitutes a violation of the Fed. A. Obviously. 408(a)(2) and Rule 5.2 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York (the “Local Rules”). Fed. A. Obviously. 408 prohibits the admission of “conduct or statement made during claim compromise negotiations.”2 Although opposition does not constitute evidence, “the rule prohibiting such reliance on settlement negotiations is a fundamental policy question. Kidney c. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 568 F. 3d 345, 352 (2d Cir. 2009). The purpose of this rule is obvious. In Rein, the Second Circuit reversed a finding regarding the amount of attorney fees based on a settlement grant. The court has the inherent power to strike improper disclosure from a settlement
This Court also has the inherent power to manage its docket and expunge information from any filing. See Smith v. AVSC Int’l Inc., 148 F. Supp. 2d 302, 317 (SDNY 2001); Muench Photography, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ’g Co., 2015 US Dist. LEXIS 105907 *9 (SDNY August 12, 2015) (“It is well established that a court has “inherent authority” to manage the matters before it. .
. . “Inherent authority” includes the court’s ability “to strike any filed document that it determines to be improper or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.” ” (emphasis added).3 In Roberto Coin, Inc., the Eastern District of New York exercised this inherent authority to overrule defendant’s objection filed in response to the Comprehensive Report and Recommendation from a magistrate, because the response contained “allegations” of a “sensitive nature”. » Roberto Coin, Inc. v. Goldstein, 2023 US Dist. LEXIS 146506, at *4-5 (EDNY Aug. 21, 2023) (Komitee, J.) (citing Blatt v. City of New York, 2019 US Dist. LEXIS 50308, at *3 (SDNY Mar. 26, 2019). Specifically , the Court ruled that “such a filing is “abusive” and “inappropriate in the circumstances[,] » [et] [par conséquent, dans l’exercice de son « pouvoir inhérent de gérer son rôle… ». sua sponte frappe [le dossier] and its attachment in their entirety. at *3 (SDNY August 12, 2015) and Katz v. Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 346 (2d Cir. 2015)).4 P sanctions in the amount of $5,000 as a penalty for their bad faith filing.
Therefore, this Court has the inherent authority to strike Plaintiffs’ opposition to the extent that it improperly discloses confidential settlement discussions. The opposition demonstrates the willful and bad faith failure of plaintiffs’ attorneys to follow the relevant rules and procedures and, in doing so, further illustrates their incompetence in handling this matter. Request for sanctions
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s inappropriate and unethical disclosure of confidential settlement discussions illustrates conduct in bad faith and a reckless failure to act responsibly as an officer of the court. A lawyer’s bad faith is punishable under the inherent authority of the court.
In this case, plaintiffs’ attorneys have demonstrated numerous violations of rules and procedures, prompting defendants to file Rule 11 motions. Nonetheless, attorneys continue to demonstrate blatant disregard applicable rules by inappropriately disclosing confidential information in their response to defendants’ requests. Although bad faith is not required to impose sanctions, in this case the bad faith is palpable. Sanctions are therefore justified.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ objection should be quashed due to the improper disclosure of settlement communications, in violation of applicable federal and local rules, and Plaintiffs’ objection should be quashed due to the improper disclosure. settlement communications, in violation of applicable federal and local rules, and the imposition of sanctions in the amount of $5,000 as a penalty for filing them in bad faith. “
