A court may exercise its inherent power against counsel and parties where “parties clearly acted in bad faith or conducted themselves dishonestly.” Kensington Int'l Ltd. v. Congo, 03-CV-4578 (LAP), 2007 WL 2456993, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2007). Assuming the necessary factual predicate, courts may sanction parties, attorneys, or law firms by dismissing actions, assessing attorneys' fees, imposing monetary penalties, or fashioning other appropriate sanctions “for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45
"Sanctions serve three purposes: (1) to prevent a party from benefitting from its own improper conduct, (2) to provide specific deterrents, and (3) to provide general deterrence." Kensington Int'l. Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, No. 03 Civ. 4578 (LAP), 2007 WL 2456993 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2007). The Court should consider whether:
Plaintiffs do not dispute this proposition, but cite Merck for the proposition that the Court may invoke its inherent powers where the party "clearly acted in bad faith or conducted [it]self dishonestly." Id. at *5 (quoting Kensington Int'l Ltd. v. Congo, No. 03 CV 4578(LAP), 2007 WL 2456993, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs assert that the jury's award of punitive damages, which was necessarily predicated on a finding of gross, wanton, and willful behavior by the Defendant, establishes a proper basis for an award of expert witness fees pursuant to the Court's inherent powers.
“A court in the Second Circuit may impose sanctions if it finds, with a high degree of specificity in its factual findings, that there is clear evidence that the challenged actions are entirely without color and are taken for reasons of harassment or delay or for other improper purposes.” Kensington Int'l, Ltd. v. Congo, No. 03–Civ.–4578(LAP), 2007 WL 2456993, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2007) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has not shown clear evidence that would allow this Court to make highly specific findings.