Motion-for-Sanctions

Case 4:11-cv-00720-JED-PJC Document 371 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/20/17 Page 1 of 7 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

) 

ROBBIE EMERY BURKE, as the Special ) 

Administratix of ELLIOTT EARL ) 

WILLIAMS, Deceased, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 11-CV-720-JED-PJC 

) 

STANLEY GLANZ, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel of record, and hereby 

moves this Court for an entry of an Order of sanctions against Defendants pursuant to this Court’s 

inherent power and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and in support thereof, states as follows: 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Litigation is not a game. The federal courts should not be a used as a vehicle for litigants to 

harass others by raising frivolous claims that lack merit under the existing facts and/or law in their 

respective matters. In this matter, counsel for the Defendants, Clark Brewster, has claimed that the 

jail video that depicts Elliott Williams last few days on this earth, and the despicable treatment he 

endured until his death, is now inadmissible based on a perceived lack of identification and 

authentication. In fact, Mr. Brewster made specific claims to this Court at the pretrial conference 

conducted in this matter on February 15, 2017, that the video recording system was “not motion 

1


activated.” 1 The apparent goal of this newly raised claim is to prevent the Plaintiff from playing this 

disturbing and surreal video to the jury at the trial currently scheduled for February 22, 2017. 

Mr. Brewster’s claim that the Plaintiff has lied and/or misled this Court has forced counsel to 

defend these baseless accusations by expending time and resources in addressing the authentication 

and admissibility of the jail video, even though this Court has already ruled upon the authentication 

and admissibility of the jail video. 2 Sanctions in this matter are appropriate to deter future abusive 

conduct during the course of these proceedings, and other litigation, that may be contemplated by 

Mr. Brewster. Sanctions are also an appropriate measure that would compensate Plaintiff for the 

time and expenses incurred in responding to frivolous claims raised at the last possible minute by 

defense counsel in the instant matter. 

2. PERTINENT FACTS 

This case began its tortured history in October 2011, and was captured by a video system 

installed in the very room where Elliott Williams languished until his ultimate death. Although 

there is no doubt that the video system captured the day and time Mr. Williams was placed in a 

“suicide” cell in the medical unit, and the day and time of his death 51 hours later, defense counsel is 

now raising claims (for the first time) that the video is not authentic…nor admissible. 

Mr. Brewster relies, in part, on the number of minutes “actually” recorded and that the video 

system was not motion activated. During the course of the pretrial hearing, Mr. Brewster first 

1 See Exhibit 1 at 49/21, 50/9, 76/9, and 79/16 – Transcript of Pretrial Hearing conducted 

on February 15, 2017, in front of the Honorable John Dowdell. 

2 See Docket No. 305 filed 7/20/16 – Order on Defendant’s Motion in Limine. (“The jail 

videos that the Court has viewed are highly probative, and the Court rejects the authentication 

argument, in light of the fact that the video was produced in discovery by Glanz, and Michelle 

Robinette, the TCSO Deputy Chief over the Jail at the time, testified at deposition that she had 

watched the medical unit cell 1 video of Mr. Williams last 50 plus hours of life.”) 

2


claimed that the actual recording was not 51 hours, it was “2000 minutes.” 3 Next, Mr. Brewster 

maintained that “…there’s only 2700 minutes recorded of the 51 hours, which comprises less than 

eight and a half percent of the time. And I have watched it all.” 4 

Next, Mr. Brewster claims the 

video is “237 minutes recorded, and it’s not motion activated.” 5 

Finally, Mr. Brewster proclaims 

that the video is “about 257 minutes long. And it’s not motion activated.” 6 

Mr. Brewster further notes that the Plaintiff has incorrectly assumed that the video system 

captured everything that occurred in the jail cell and that it “…is a continuous video. That’s not 

true.” 7 

Apparently, Mr. Brewster is seeking the exclusion of the best piece of evidence, and quite 

frankly, the most reliable piece of evidence that shows what happened to Elliott Williams up until 

the time of his death. Understandably, any Defendant that stands in the shoes of the Tulsa County 

Sheriff’s office would not want a jury to see trays of food, and cruel and inhumane remarks, being 

slung at a paralyzed person. More importantly, Mr. Brewster notes that the lack of movement within 

the jail cell would mean that Elliott Williams “wasn’t moving or that Elliott Williams wasn’t fed.” 

It has been made abundantly clear that Mr. Brewster is seeking the exclusion of the video 

evidence that would show that the Tulsa County Sheriff’s office did not provide food, drink, and 

medical treatment during the last days of Elliott William’s life. The prejudicial effect of this video is 

hard to overcome, unless of course, this Court would entertain a last minute effort by defense 

counsel to exclude this jail video. If the Defendant could convince this Court that there are portions 

of the video that are missing, and that the missing pieces of video have evidentiary value (to wit: 

showing detention officers feeding and caring for Mr. Williams), the Defendants would stand in a 

3 Ex. 1 at 48/13 & 48/17. 

4 Id. at 49/3. 

5 Id. at 49/22. 

6 Id. at 50/8. 

3


better position to argue admissibility which is exactly why Mr. Brewster is attempting to convince 

this Court that the video system was not motion activated…but it is. 

Contrary to Mr. Brewster’s position – which he even asserts was based on his “own personal 

investigation” – the video system was, in fact, motion activated. Apparently unknown to Mr. 

Brewster, but not unknown to the Tulsa County Sheriff’s office, a deposition of the person with the 

most knowledge of the video security system at the Tulsa County Jail, Steve Miller 8 , was conducted 

on June 30, 2015, in the companion case of Revilla v. Glanz, Case No. 13-CV-315-JED-TLW. 9 At 

the time of the 2015 deposition, Mr. Miller was the “maintenance department supervisor” 10 and 

assisted in the installation of the video surveillance system at the Tulsa County Jail. 11 

Mr. Miller 

discusses the video system at length and confirms that the video recording system installed at the 

Tulsa County Jail is “motion activated.” 12 

3. APPLICABLE LAW AND ARGUMENT 

A court’s inherent power gives it the authority to impose “a sanction for abuse of the judicial 

process, or, in other words, for bad faith conduct in litigation.” Farmer v. Banco Popular of N. Am., 

791 F.3d 1246, 1256 (10th Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court has described the “narrowly defined 

circumstances [in which] federal courts have inherent power to assess attorney’s fees against 

counsel” as involving actions taken “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991). 

7 Id. at 73/9. 

8 See Exhibit 2 at pg. 29-31 – Deposition of Michelle Robinette conducted on November 

30, 2012, in the companion case of Poore v. Glanz, Case No. 11-CV-797-JED-TLW. 

9 Exhibit 3 is subject to a protective order, and as such, the deposition transcript will be 

filed under seal contemporaneously with this Motion. 

10 Ex. 3 at 15/3. 

11 Id. at 19-20. 

12 Id. at 24-26. 

4


Federal law also provides that any attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case 

unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, 

expenses, and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The 

courts consider this more of an “extreme standard,” and that fees should be awarded “only in 

instances evidencing a serious and standard disregard for the orderly process of justice.” AeroTech, 

Inc. v. Estes, 110 F.3d 1523, 1528 (10th Cir. 1997). However, Courts need not find that an attorney 

subjectively acted in bad faith, rather, “any conduct that, viewed objectively, manifests either 

intentional or reckless disregard of the attorney’s duties to the court is sanctionable.” Hamilton v. 

Boise Cascade Express, 519 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2008). The statute makes attorneys 

potentially liable for harm caused “because of” unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of 

proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Thus, “there must be a causal connection between the objectionable 

conduct of counsel and multiplication of the proceedings,” such that the conduct “result[ed] in 

proceedings that would not have been conducted otherwise.” Peterson v. BMI Refractories, 124 F.3d 

1386, 1396 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Lee v. First Lenders Ins. Servs., Inc., 236 F.3d 443, 445 (8th 

Cir. 2001). 

In the instant matter, monetary sanctions, together with a strong warning against any future 

conduct is appropriate. Ultimately, Mr. Brewster should not be allowed to cause Plaintiff to incur 

thousands of dollars in fees and costs necessary to respond to his frivolous claims. Moreover, in light 

of the strong likelihood that he will continue to argue these frivolous claims, generating more time 

and expense to the detriment of all parties and the courts, warnings deterring any future conduct is 

particularly appropriate. 

5


4. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order of 

sanctions against Mr. Brewster, and Defendants Collectively, and award to Plaintiff the reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in responding to Mr. Brewster’s frivolous and false 

claims regarding the jail video monitoring system, and for such other and further relief that this court 

deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Daniel E. Smolen 

Daniel E. Smolen, OBA # 19943 

danielsmolen@ssrok.com 

Donald E. Smolen, II, OBA #19944 

donaldsmolen@ssrok.com 

Robert M. Blakemore, OBA #18656 

bobblakemore@ssrok.com 

Smolen Smolen & Roytman 

701 South Cincinnati Avenue 

Tulsa, OK 74119 

(918) 585-2667 

(918) 585-2669 – Fax 

and, 

Louis W. Bullock, OBA #1305 

lbullock@bullock-blakemore.com 

Patricia W. Bullock, OBA #9569 

pbullock@bullock-blakemore.com 

Bullock Law Firm 

110 West Seventh Street, Suite 707 


(918) 584-2001 

(918) 779-4383 – Fax 

and, 

Gregory J. Denney, OBA #17918 

greg@gregdenneylaw.com 

Gregory J. Denney & Associates, P.C. 

1204 South Cheyenne Avenue 

6


Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 

(918) 295-0077 

(918) 295-8578 – Fax 

and, 

Thomas Mortensen, OBA # 19183 

tmort70@hotmail.com 

Mortensen & Associates, LLC 

1331 S. Denver Ave. 


(918) 392-9992 

(918) 392-9993 - Fax 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on February 20, 2017, I electronically transmitted the foregoing 

document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of 

Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants: 

Clark Otto Brewster, Cbrewster@brewsterlaw.com 

Guy A. Fortney, GFortney@brewsterlaw.com 

Corbin C. Brewster, ccbrewster@brewsterlaw.com 

Meredith L. Baker, mbaker@tcso.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

/s/ Daniel E. Smolen 

7

Motion-for-Sanctions

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?