context: Both Rule 11 and Rule 26 treat signed papers as certifying that the pleading is not offered for any improper purpose, such as to harass, that the claims and contentions therein have a basis in existing law, and that the contentions have evidentiary support. Thus, actions that violate Rule 11(b) also violate the provisions of Rule 26(g), and sanctions imposed pursuant to either rule are reviewed under identical abuse of discretion standards'.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 855 F.2d 1009, 1015
citation_a.parenthetical: in interpreting and applying Rule 26(g), courts look to case law and standards under Rule 11
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., In re Byrd, Inc., 927 F.2d 1135, 1137 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts apply Rule 11 standards and case law to Rule 26(g)); Apex Oil Co. v. Belcher Co. of New York, Inc., 855 F.2d 1009, 1015 (2d Cir. 1988) (in interpreting and applying Rule 26(g), courts look to case law and standards under Rule 11); Estate of Miles v. Miles, 994 P.2d 1139, 1146 (Mont. 2000) (since Rule 26(g) contains same language as Rule 11 to the effect that pleading or discovery request or objection may not be “interposed for any improper purpose,” same standard of review applies); see also Jerome v. Pardis, 783 P.2d 919, 922-23 (Mont. 1989) (although trial court erred in imposing sanction under Rule 37(b) in the absence of a prior discovery order, sanction would be affirmed under Rule 26(g)).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 783 P.2d 919, 922-23
citation_b.parenthetical: although trial court erred in imposing sanction under Rule 37(b) in the absence of a prior discovery order, sanction would be affirmed under Rule 26(g
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., In re Byrd, Inc., 927 F.2d 1135, 1137 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts apply Rule 11 standards and case law to Rule 26(g)); Apex Oil Co. v. Belcher Co. of New York, Inc., 855 F.2d 1009, 1015 (2d Cir. 1988) (in interpreting and applying Rule 26(g), courts look to case law and standards under Rule 11); Estate of Miles v. Miles, 994 P.2d 1139, 1146 (Mont. 2000) (since Rule 26(g) contains same language as Rule 11 to the effect that pleading or discovery request or objection may not be “interposed for any improper purpose,” same standard of review applies); see also Jerome v. Pardis, 783 P.2d 919, 922-23 (Mont. 1989) (although trial court erred in imposing sanction under Rule 37(b) in the absence of a prior discovery order, sanction would be affirmed under Rule 26(g)).