Barnett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW BARNETT, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02585-VC

Plaintiffs,

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON

v. SANCTIONS

BERNARD GARRIGAN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 100, 112 Defendants.

Pursuant to the Court’s inherent power, Andrew Barnett is sanctioned for his conduct during the deposition of Christine Pfeffer. Under its inherent power, a court may “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991); see Claypole v. County of Monterey, 2016 WL 145557, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016). Before imposing such a sanction, a court must “specifically find[] bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001). And, to comport with the requirements of due process, the sanctioned party must have notice and the opportunity to respond. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 50. Sanctions are appropriate here. Some of Barnett’s interruptions during the deposition were disruptive but not obviously in bad faith. However, two incidents escalated to personal attacks on the defendants and defendants’ counsel. This…