Case

HK – Jonathan Brackett Crocker Sanctioned

In 1 on January 3, 2009 at 1:01 pm

Sanctions in Positive Technologies v. LG Display, et al.

A reader brought the sanctions ruling in the "Positive Technologies, Inc. v. LG Display Co., Ltd., and Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C." (Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, U.S. District Court, Civil No. 2:07 CV 67) case to my attention today.

Judge Ward writes:

On October 9, 2008, the court held a show cause hearing for why Jonathan Brackett Crocker (“Crocker”) should not be sanctioned for violating the standards of practice to be observed by attorneys practicing in this district.

Prior to the hearing, Crocker negotiated with the defendants to withdraw their Motion for Sanctions in return for an extension of time for discovery.

On August 27, 2008, James Brogan, representing the plaintiff, and Jennifer Ainsworth, representing the defendant, signed an “Agreement Re Withdrawal of Positive’s Motions for Sanctions and for Limited Extension of Discovery.”

The following day, August 28, 2008, the plaintiff withdrew its Motion for Sanctions. Having secured the agreement to withdraw the Motion for Sanctions, on August 29, 2008–one day later–Cocker wrote a letter to plaintiff’s counsel refusing to comply with the agreement.

The court has found that Crocker impeded justice by participating in discovery misconduct in this case. Crocker persuaded opposing counsel to withdraw a Motion for Sanctions the court was primed to hear. To secure that withdrawal, Crocker negotiated an agreement whereby the defendant would pay for depositions during an extended discovery time. As soon as he secured that withdrawal, Crocker notified opposing counsel he and his client would not be fully complying with that agreement.

Having found that Crocker violated the rules cited above, the court imposes the following sanctions:

1) Jonathan Brackett Crocker is formally sanctioned for professional misconduct on the record. If ever Crocker files any application for admission to any bar, when asked the question whether he has been sanctioned or disciplined for professional misconduct, the truthful answer to that question will be “yes.”

2) Should Crocker at any time desire to be admitted to this bar, he is directed that such application shall be directed to the undersigned Judge rather than through the normal administrative process.

3) By April 9, 2009, Crocker is to take seventeen hours of continuing legal education in area of professionalism and ethics…

4) The court finds that the Crocker’s biography on the Holland and Knight website is misleading. Crocker claims to be admitted to practice in this court without limitation. By October 19, 2008, Crocker is to have the website changed to reflect he is admitted only pro hac vice, for limited purposes only in this matter.

Posted via email from HKLaw Investigation

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: