## Facts

- A conservator for a minor sued Abbott Laboratories in a products-liability action alleging powdered infant formula contained bacteria that caused permanent brain damage.
- Claims included manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which returned a defense verdict for Abbott on the product-liability claims.
- Post-judgment, the district court initiated sanctions proceedings sua sponte against Abbott’s lead trial counsel based on deposition conduct.
- The court identified pervasive deposition practices it viewed as obstructive, including repeated “form” objections, alleged witness coaching through speaking objections and qualifiers, and frequent interruptions.
- After briefing and a telephonic hearing, the district court imposed a non-monetary sanction requiring counsel to create and distribute a deposition-practice training video within her law firm.

## Issues

1. Whether defense counsel’s deposition conduct “impede[d], delay[ed], or frustrate[d] the fair examination of the deponent” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2), and/or warranted sanctions under the court’s inherent powers.
2. Whether a district court may impose an educational, non-monetary sanction (a required training video and internal distribution) as an “appropriate sanction” for deposition misconduct.
3. Whether due process requirements—fair notice of the specific sanctionable conduct and an opportunity to respond—were satisfied when the sanctions rationale relied on theories articulated in the written order.

## Decision

- The district court found defense counsel violated Rule 30(d)(2) and sanctioned counsel using a training-video requirement directed at deterrence and education.
- The sanction required the video to explain improper deposition practices identified by the court and to state that it was produced pursuant to a federal-court sanctions order; the video was to be distributed within counsel’s national law firm.
- On appeal (in related proceedings), the Eighth Circuit reversed and vacated the sanctions order, holding the district court abused its discretion because the sanction rested on grounds not adequately noticed and developed in the show-cause process.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) authorizes sanctions against a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a deponent, including non-monetary remedies where appropriate.
- Courts possess inherent power to address abusive litigation practices, but sanctions must satisfy due process, including clear notice of the specific conduct alleged to be sanctionable and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- Sanctions may not be sustained when the operative theories and rule interpretations supporting punishment emerge only in the final written sanctions order rather than being identified with sufficient specificity during the sanctions proceedings.
- Appellate review of discovery sanctions is deferential, but a sanction constitutes an abuse of discretion when its factual and legal basis was not fairly presented to the sanctioned party before imposition.

## Conclusion

The district court imposed an educational, firm-wide training-video sanction for deposition conduct it found obstructive under Rule 30(d)(2) and inherent authority, but the sanction was later vacated on appeal because the grounds supporting it were not adequately noticed and litigated, violating basic procedural fairness requirements for sanctions.


Sec. Nat’l Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Lab’ys, 299 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Iowa 2014)