Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger (15-1406)

argument 15-1406

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger

Supreme Court of the United States 57 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the direct causation standard the parties argue should apply to sanctions?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear an argument next in case fifteen fourteen oh six.

Michael W. Bergeron 0:04

Goodyear versus Heiger.

John G. Roberts 0:05

Mr Bergeron?

Michael W. Bergeron 0:07

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may I please the court. A direct causation standard is necessary in light of the historic restrictions on a court's inherent authority. And it provides courts with a workable framework that they customarily apply in the sanctions context. Respondents in fact acknowledge that a direct causation standard applies sometimes, but not always. Their two tiered suggestion, however, does not provide concrete guidance to the district courts and it would inevitably lead to the expansion of the inherent authority. One of the reasons this Court has been reticent about any sort of broadening of the scope of the inherent authority is because the due process issues and separation of powers issues

Michael W. Bergeron 0:49

combined with a court determining the violation, acting essentially as prosecutor and fact finder, and then imposing the penalty. And

Elena Kagan 1:00

how do you um am I to take that your uh I think what I read from your brief is that we should draw the line that we drew in Bagley. between compensatory damages under the contempt inherent power. And um compuls uh uh punishment damages. that require criminal civil procedure. Is that the same thing you're asking us to import in?

Michael W. Bergeron 1:29

Yes, that is essentially the same thing.

Elena Kagan 1:31

So how do you deal with chambers?

Michael W. Bergeron 1:33

So we deal with chambers a couple of ways. First of all, Chambers is factually distinguishable from our case because Chambers was based purely on uh pervasive misconduct that was so bad that it tanned the entire case because there was no there was no good faith defense at the end of the day. We have the good faith defense here. But secondly,

Unknown 1:54

wasn't that what was found here, that it was pervasive from the very first effort to get discovery continuing through the settlement?

Michael W. Bergeron 2:03

No, Justice Ginsberg. In fact what the court found ultimately was it recognized it did not resolve the question of whether the heat rise test was dispositive and it said plaintiffs believe it would be helpful, but it did not make a determination of that. And in light of that, we had good faith defenses as to even if the test were produced, that there was still a design defect. And beyond that, there were also causation defenses as to the ultimate cause of the accident, whether that was driver error or whether there was uh impact damage.

Unknown 2:32

But weren't you given the opportunity, maybe you can clarify this? A The court said, Well, if we're wrong about giving all of the council fees. then we will deduct what some seven hundred thousand Dollars. Based on Good use filing. of the amount that should not be recovered because it was unrelated to Good views, bad conduct.

Michael W. Bergeron 3:02

Correct. So there's two points on that. First of all, um that was how that evolved was the court had already ruled against us on the causation point, so we had lost that battle. And then when we f when the plaintiffs finally submitted their fee application, we took a fallback position and said, at a bare minimum, this needs to be carved out. So we haven't waived that. But I think the second But

Unknown 3:24

you represented that that was the cost that was not attributable to Goodyears. Um mis conduct.

Michael W. Bergeron 3:34

What we represented was that uh it was related to the medical costs, the medical damages, proving up the medical damages, as well as the pursuit of the other defendants. So that would be one subset of the uh of the costs that were not caused by the misconduct, but it wasn't the total one. And what is significant about that as well is that the Court said it is impossible to make this calculation. But then the Court did, at least to a certain extent, make a calculation based on the evidence that was submitted.

John G. Roberts 4:04

Well, your test is the direct directness of the causation. And I I guess I'm uh um curious as to how you would apply that in practice. I mean if you take a case, for example, they don't get the heat rise test, they get something else that isn't as uh in their view dramatic or compelling. And they have to go through all sorts of they're preparing somebody to testify about this other test.