ThermoLife International LLC, et al. v. BPI Sports, LLC

In Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 207 (1958), the Court held that a federal court’s authority to dismiss a case for discovery noncompliance arises from Rule 37, not from Rule 41(b) or any free‑floating “inherent power.” In Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991), in a 5-4 decision, the Court pushed back and “discern[ed] no basis for holding that the sanctioning scheme of the statute and the rules displaces the inherent power to impose sanctions for the bad-faith conduct.” The questions presented are:

1. Whether an imposition of sanctions against a party and not its attorney under a court’s inherent authority can be upheld by the mere talismanic recitation of the phrase “bad faith” when courts are in conflict about whether an inherent-authority sanction requires bad faith and when the appeals court does not rely on the district court’s key finding on bad faith.

2. Whether an imposition of sanctions under a court’s inherent authority can be affirmed based on conduct that was not sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.