1. What if the "playing games" was done for the sole purpose to delay, harass and run up the cost?You can prove the opposing side knew what was said was untrue, or simply that it was untrue? There is a big difference there. Rule 11 specifies that pleadings and motions are signed with the effect that the attorney or party certifies certain things "to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances". So if the opposing party/attorney believe it to be true it is not a Rule 11 violation even if you can prove it to be untrue.
Rule 11, as quincy points out, doesn't cover discovery. Also, the rule doesn't ban "playing games" so long as the party is not doing it solely to delay, harass, or run up the costs of the other side.
You'd state the facts upon which you rely in your motion. If the court needs to see evidence to support the motion, it will schedule a hearing, and you'd present your evidence at the hearing.
Unfortunately that is not all that unusual in litigation and the system tolerates a certain amount of it.
Then that violates both the rules of professional conduct for lawyers and might implicate Rule 11 if it involved a pleading, motion, or other paper filed with the court. The problem is proving that it is the sole reason for doing it. If the lawyer is at all good he or she will be able to provide a plausible valid reason for each action taken in the case. For example, a motion is filed that to you looks ridiculous because you think it has no chance to succeed. But if the lawyer can offer something to show that it had some chance of success, even if that chance is pretty low, that's likely to pass muster. The rules are not meant to punish a party or its lawyer for pursuing something that they think might succeed, even though that chance is low. If the rules did that, a lot of novel legal arguments that have succeeded over the years never could have been done. Sure, that also means that it allows engaging in some games, too, when used more for delay or to run up cost, but the rules tend to err on the side of allowing parties freedom to make those novel arguments rather than shutting down all the things that have small chance of success.1. What if the "playing games" was done for the sole purpose to delay, harass and run up the cost?
My followup question is when you say "they" are you talking about the opposing side(in my case a company) or the attorney they hired?
3. Can the motion be Rule 11 motion be amended. I believe as more information comes out on discovery, the list of lies they told will increase more and more.
4. Does the same Judge for the case handle and Rule 11 sanctions
5. Does that setup almost like a separate mini trial that runs parallel to the main proceedings?
6. How long does that process normally take?
I was going to say that I think he is screwed. Haha.And worth every penny
So this Epstein-like character claims to the judge that he is an innocent 3rd party and has nothing to do with the company however we have documents showing he admitted to be a partial owner of the company and maybe more than a part owner when the majority owner committed suicide.I was going to say that I think he is screwed. Haha.
In what stage of the case are you, zenoMorph? Could you give a more specific example of one of the "games" being played, one of the motions filed by the opposing party (absent identifying information)?
You present your evidence in court and let it do the talking.So this Epstein-like character claims to the judge that he is an innocent 3rd party and has nothing to do with the company however we have documents showing he admitted to be a partial owner of the company and maybe more than a part owner when the majority owner committed suicide.