Yoder et al v. Conaway Racing & Trucking, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JACOB YODER, 	et al., 	*
Plaintiffs, 	*
v. 	* 	Civil Action No. LKG-23-1365
CONAWAY RACING & TRUCKING, 	*
LLC, 	et al.,
*
Defendants.
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs Jacob Yoder, Shawn Yoder, and Natasha Yoder assert negligence claims
arising from a motor vehicle accident against Defendants Conaway Racing & Trucking LLC
(Conaway) and Aaron J. Pacheco (collectively, Conaway Defendants); Builders FirstSource,
Inc.; Builders FirstSource 	Atlantic Group LLC; and ProBuild Company LLC doing business as
Builders FirstSource (collectively, BFS Defendants); and seek damages, costs, and interest.1
ECF No. 52. On June 11, 2024, the Honorable Lydia Kay Griggsby referred this action to the
undersigned for all discovery matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. ECF No. 87. As relevant
here, pending before the Court 	.2 ECF No. 149. The motion is
1 Plaintiffs initially filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia on July 29, 2022. ECF Nos. 1 ¶ 2; 1-3. On September
13, 2022, Defendants Builders FirstSource, Inc., Builders FirstSource 	Atlantic Group LLC, and
ProBuild Company LLC doing business as Builders FirstSource (collectively, BFS Defendants)
removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 10 	23. On May 22, 2023, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred the case to this District
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 33.
2
liability expert (ECF No. 123) and for summary judgment (ECF No. 124), which are not fully
briefed and have been held in abeyance pending resolution of the instant motion for sanctions.
ECF No. 132.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 26

2
fully briefed.3 ECF Nos. 150 	151. A motion hearing was held on January 20, 2026 (ECF No.
159), and the parties filed 	160
161, 163). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Factual Allegations and Claims4
motor vehicle accident that occurred in Cecil County,
Maryland, on October 2, 2020. ECF No. 52 ¶¶ 74 	76. Plaintiffs allege that BFS Defendants
hired Conaway Defendants to transport building materials. 	Id. 	at ¶ 38. BFS Defendants are
entities involved in the trucking business. 	Id. 	at ¶¶ 7
3 	On January 19, 2026 	a date on which the courthouse was closed in observance of the
Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday
No. 158. The undersigned has not considered this filing, which is an unauthorized surreply.
on December 26, 2025, BFS Defendants had ample time to seek leave to file additional materials
with the Court. ECF No. 151.
unapproved attempt to put forward new information and argument less than 24 hours before the
scheduled motion hearing on a date when the courthouse was closed. The undersigned further
notes that BFS Defendants filed a similar eleventh-hour 	(ECF No. 135)
at 5:51 pm on the evening before the September 24, 2025 status conference (ECF No. 136).
This practice of filing supplemental documents mere hours before a court proceeding is
unfair and prejudicial because it deprives opposing parties and their counsel of a meaningful
opportunity to object and/or respond. Such a practice also works a disservice both to the Court
and to the opposing parties and their counsel 	and ultimately BFS Defendants 	because it
creates unnecessary time pressures and significantly reduces the opportunity for meaningful
review. 	expressly prohibit last-minute filings. Local Rule
105.2(b) (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2025) ( 	In no event, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, is any
memorandum to be filed after 4:00 p.m. on the afternoon before the last business day preceding
the day on which the proceeding to which the memorandum relates is to be held. For example, a
memorandum relating to a proceeding to be held on a Monday must be filed by 4:00 p.m. the
). BFS Defendants and their counsel are forewarned that any similarly tardy
and unsolicited filings will not be received favorably.
4 The factual allegations are drawn from the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 52. The
undersigned takes no position on the veracity of the factual allegations, which are contested, and
offers this summary solely for the purpose of contextualizing the pending dispute.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 26

3
for- 	Id. 	at ¶ 11. Conaway assigned Mr. Pacheco to transport the building
materials using a tractor cab and flatbed trailer. 	Id. 	at ¶ 40. On the date of the occurrence, while
driving eastbound on Peninsula Drive, Mr. Pacheco allegedly disregarded a stop sign, failed to
yield, entered the southbound traffic on North East Road, and collided with the vehicle Jacob
Yoder was operating. 	Id. 	at ¶¶ 74 	76. Plaintiffs aver that as a result of the collision, Mr. Yoder
manent injuries to his brain, skull, musculoskeletal system, vascular
system, and nervous system; he also sustained severe and permanent injuries to the bones,
muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues to his body,
Id. 	at ¶¶ 77 	78.
Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Pacheco was unfit to operate a tractor trailer and that Conaway and
BFS Defendants were negligent in hiring him. 	Id. 	at ¶¶ 84 	97.
The Amended Complaint pleads five counts. ECF No. 52. Under Maryland law,
Plaintiffs assert a negligence claim against all Defendants (Count I) (id. 	at ¶¶ 100 	103); a
negligent hiring and retention claim against BFS Defendants (Count II) (id. 	at ¶¶ 104 	110); a
negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claim against Conaway and BFS Defendants (Count
III) (id. 	at ¶¶ 111 	117); negligent entrustment claims against Conaway and BFS Defendants
(Counts IV and V) (id. 	at ¶¶ 118 	124 and ¶¶ 125 	131); and civil aiding and abetting against BFS
Defendants (Count VI) (id. 	at ¶¶ 132 	137). Plaintiffs also seek pecuniary damages (Count VII).
Id. 	at ¶¶ 171 	172.
As relevant here, in Count II, Plaintiffs allege that BFS Defendants had a duty to ensure
U.S. Department of Transportation and . . . had the minimum insurance required by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety regulations for the benefit of the motoring public, including the required
insurance 	for the tractor trailer Mr. Pacheco operated on the date of the occurrence. 	Id. 	at ¶ 106.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 26

4
Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Pacheco and the tractor trailer he operated on the date of the occurrence
were uninsured. 	Id. 	at ¶ 48. Plaintiffs also contend that BFS Defendants did not undertake
appropriate due diligence to ensure that Conaway and Mr. Pacheco would safely transport the
Id. 	at
¶ 60; 	see also id. 	at ¶¶ 55 	61, 64 	68. Plaint
2, 2020, did [ ]
Pacheco or the vehicle he operated (id. 	at ¶ 69
id. 	at ¶ 108).
B. 	Relevant Procedural History
On July 10, 2025, BFS Defendants moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 124. In
their statement of undisputed material facts, BFS Defendants assert that they
ECF No. 124-3 ¶ 26 (Ex. 2; Ex. 10). In their memorandum of law in support of summary
judgment, BFS Defendants argue, among other things, that they had confirmed that Conaway
was properly insured. ECF No. 124-4 at 3.5 	BFS Defendants further assert that they are entitled
because, among other reasons, Conaway had insurance coverage at the time of the occurrence.6
Id. 	at 10; 	see also 	ECF No. 124-7 at 14.
5 	Case Management/Electronic Case
Files (CM/ECF) system printed at the top of the cited document, except that page numbers of
filings that are transcripts refer to the page and line number of the transcript.
6 The BFS Defendants further argue that even if there was
-4 at 10.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 26

5
On July 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to file a motion for sanctions based on
insurance in discovery and in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. 	ECF No. 125
at 1.
challenged certificate of insurance. ECF No. 129 at 1. On July 30, 2025, Judge
Griggsby held a status conference and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a motion for sanctions,
referred said motion to a United States Magistrate Judge for resolution, and held in abeyance the
motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 124) and to strike expert testimony (ECF No. 123)
(ECF No. 132).
Thereafter, the undersigned held a status conference and set deadlines for limited
discovery related to the authenticity of the August 28, 2020 certificate of insurance. ECF Nos.
136 	137. BFS Defendants subsequently sought leave to take additional discovery and to extend
motion for sanctions. ECF Nos. 138, 142. Ultimately, Plaintiffs moved for sanctions on
December 5, 2025. ECF No. 149. Once the motion was fully briefed, the undersigned heard oral
argument on January 20, 2026. ECF No. 159. Following the motion hearing, the undersigned
permitted the parties to submit further briefing on the issue of 	(ECF No. 160),
which they filed on January 28, 2026, and February 4, 2026. (ECF Nos. 161, 163).
II. 	DISCUSSION
The instant motion raises two discrete questions: (1) whether the certificate of insurance
at issue is fraudulent; and, if so, (2) what sanction, if any, is appropriate. ECF No. 133 at 31:2 	7.
Each question is addressed in turn below.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 26

6
A. 	Authenticity of the Certificate of Insurance
The undersigned need not belabor the first inquiry: the August 28, 2020 certificate of
insurance was fraudulently altered and is therefore inauthentic. In July 2025, Plaintiffs filed a
declaration and affidavit executed by Scott Rovner, the President of Rovner Insurance Group
(Rovner), who attested that Rovner did not issue the contested certificate of insurance and that it
was fraudulent. ECF No. 125-1 at 14 	16. Subsequent discovery on the issue of authenticity
confirmed the same. 	E.g., ECF Nos. 149-2; 149-4.
To contextualize discussion of the inauthentic document and the role of a certificate of
automobile liability insurance in the instant action, the undersigned notes the following. BFS
s FirstSource and Conaway
entered into a motor carrier agreement on May 11, 2016. ECF No. 149-6 at 5:14 	20, 16:15 	21,
24:21 	25:1; 	see also 	ECF No. 150-19 at 3 	7. Pursuant to this agreement, Conaway was required
to maintain automobile insurance. ECF Nos. 149-6 at 25:5 	16; 150-19 ¶ 10(b). BFS
they had verified that Conaway did not
have the required automobile insurance coverage, they would not have engaged Conaway to
transport the October 2, 2020 load. ECF No. 149-6 at 74:6 	16.
J.S. Braddock Agency (Braddock) issued a certificate of insurance on February 13, 2020,
which documented, among other things, that Conaway had an automobile liability policy
effective through August 15, 2020. ECF No. 150-22. Patrick Montgomery was the contact
person listed on this certificate of insurance. 	Id. 	At the time, Mr. Montgomery was an employee
of Braddock. ECF No. 149-7 at 7:7 	13. Braddock issued another certificate of insurance on
August 27, 2020, which did not include an automobile liability policy. ECF No. 156-11. Mr.
Montgomery was listed as the contact person for this certificate of insurance as well. 	Id.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 26

7
Plaintiffs retained an expert who prepared a report dated October 11, 2024, in which the
expert noted that Cona
-4 at 9. The expert further opined that if they had
Id. 	The expert concluded, in relevant part, that BFS Defendants
7 Id. 	at 10 	11.
Under the Second Amended Scheduling Order, discovery closed on December 20, 2024.
ECF No. 98. Plaintiffs assert that on December 17, 2024, BFS Defendants produced a
previously undisclosed document that purports to be a certificate of insurance dated August 28,
2020. ECF Nos. 149 at 6, 149-1 at 2. This certificate of insurance indicated that it had been
issued by Rovner and purported to document that Conaway had automobile insurance effective
March 21, 2020, through March 21, 2021.8 	ECF No. 149-1 at 2. This document identifies Mr.
Rovner as the contact person. 	Id.
7 	The undersigned offers no assessment of
which are contested, or whether the expert is appropriately designated, which is the subject of
observations and opinions is included here not for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to
contextualize production of the August 28, 2020 certificate of insurance at issue in the instant
motion for sanctions. It should also be noted that BFS Defendants retained an expert, who
-8.
8
his December 17, 2024 deposition that he did not engage Rovner Insurance Group (Rovner).
ECF No. 150-21 at 72:7 	9. Instead, J.S. Braddock Agency (Braddock) engaged Rovner for
reasons for which Mr. Conaway was not aware. 	Id. 	at 72:11 	13.
designee, Timothy Latimer, testified that Rovner was engaged because Braddock had a
-4 at 6:12 	22; 	see also id. at 9:15 	22, 12:6 	9.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 26

8
Mr. Rovner testified his November 7, 2025 deposition that his office sent a certificate of
insurance to Mr. Montgomery, at his request. ECF No. 149-2 at 6:2 	5, 13:10 	14:12; 	see also
ECF Nos. 150-26; 150-28. He further testified that the certificate of insurance his office sent to
Mr. Montgomery 	after-the-fact. ECF No. 149-2 at 16:16. For example,
Id. 	at 17:4 	9; 	see also id. 	at 23:10 	24:3. Further, another
portion of the text appeared to have been cut and pasted into the document. 	Id. 	at 17:9 	14. Mr.
Rovner did not know who had altered the certificate, although he suspected that it had been Mr.
Montgomery because Rovner had sent it to Mr.
altered. 	Id. 	at 16:16, 17:24 	18:2. Mr. Rovner did not direct Mr. Montgomery
to alter the document and was not aware that anyone else had done so. 	Id. 	at 18:6 	11.
Id. 	at
22:18 	21.
Timothy Latimer, Vice-President of Braddock, testified at a deposition also taken on
November 7, 2025, that Mr. Montgomery had previously told him on September 3, 2025, that he
had altered the certificate of insurance at issue, although Mr. Latimer did not know why. ECF
No. 149-4 at 6:1 	4, 18:8 	23. Mr. Latimer further testified that no one at Braddock knew that
[of insurance]
Id. 	at 19:7 	8. Mr. Montgomery altered the certificate of insurance while he was working for
Braddock, but he did so without permission and outside the scope of his employment. 	Id. 	at
8:16 	9:4. Mr. Latimer did not direct Mr. Montgomery to alter the certificate and did not know
whether anyone else did. 	Id. 	at 20:2 	5. After learning of the alteration, Braddock suspended
Mr. Montgomery pending an investigation. 	Id. 	at 25:19 	23, 26:8 	9. The investigation revealed
that Mr. Montgomery had altered the certificate of insurance outside the scope of his
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 8 of 26

9
employment. 	Id. 	at 26:13 	19. Mr. Montgomery resigned before Braddock could terminate his
employment. 	Id. 	at 26:20 	21. Ultimately, Mr. Latimer testified that the certificate of insurance
Id. 	at 28:3 	5, 11 	12.
Mr. Montgomery sat for a deposition on November 19, 2025, at which time he invoked
his right against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution when asked about the August 28, 2020 certificate of insurance. ECF No. 149-7 at
8:16 	21, 9:9 	13:25, 14:11 	23; U.S. Const. amend. V.
Neither party has offered any evidence to suggest that the August 28, 2020 certificate of
insurance is authentic. The record as a whole establishes that it was, in fact, fraudulently altered.
Indeed, counsel for BFS Defendants acknowledged during the January 20, 2026 motion hearing
that she has known as much since at least November 7, 2025. ECF No. 159.
B. 	Sanctions
The remaining question is what sanction, if any, is appropriate. Plaintiffs initially sought
entry of a default judgment against BFS Defendants on Counts II and VI of the Amended
Complaint. ECF No. 149 at 20. At the motion hearing, Plaintiffs proffered an array of
alternative sanctions, including striking the fraudulent document from the record, making
substantive findings regarding liability and other elements of certain claims, instructing the jury
on 	. ECF No. 159. BFS Defendants advanced
e.g., that
Conaway had automobile liability insurance, that BFS Defendants did not solely rely upon the
certificate of insurance in conducting its due diligence, that Plaintiffs should have raised the
authenticity issue sooner). 	Id.
statutory authority, as well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1)(C). ECF No. 149 at 12.
On January 21, 2026, following the motion hearing, the undersigned directed the parties to file
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 9 of 26

10
supplemental briefing addressing whether a sanction was warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11 	. ECF
Nos. 160 	161, 163. The legal framework governing each vehicle for the imposition of sanctions
is addressed in turn below.
1. 	Legal Framework
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that courts of justice possess
certain implied or inherent powers, which are
necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
Chambers 	v. 	NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (quoting
Link 	v. 	Wabash R. Co., 	370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
subject to abuse, it must be exercised with the greatest restraint and caution, and then only to the
United States 	v. 	Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 461 (4th Cir. 1993).
Dickens 	v. 	Conner, Civil Action
No. SAG-23-177, 2024 WL 4135388, at *3 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2024) (quoting 	Harvey 	v. 	Cable
News Network, Inc., 48 F.4th 257, 281 (4th Cir. 2022)).
Harvey, 48 F.4th 	at 276.
Beyond this inherent power, Congress has further conferred upon the courts authority to
order any attorney 	who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously
. . . to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys 	fees reasonably incurred
because of such conduct. 	28 U.S.C. § 1927.
Sweetland 	v. 	Bank of Am. Corp., 241 Fed. Appx. 92, 95 (4th Cir.
2007) (quoting 	Brubaker 	v. 	City of Richmond, 	943 F.2d 1363, 1382 n.25 (4th Cir.1991)).
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 10 of 26

11
-faith conduct that
Six 	v. 	Generations Fed. Credit Union, 891 F.3d 508, 520
(4th Cir. 2018). Because
merits, 	DeBauche 	v. 	Trani, 	191 F.3d 499, 511 (4th Cir. 1999), it
Baker 	v. 	Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., Civil Action No. RWT-06-889, 2008 WL
11425679, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 31, 2008), 	, 358 Fed. Appx. 476 (4th Cir. 2009).
Merely negligent conduct will not support an imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927. 	In re Gould, 77 Fed. Appx. 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2003). Instead, similar to the imposition
of sanctions based on inherent authority, 	a finding of counsel 	s bad
faith. 	Id. 	(quoting 	Chaudhry 	v. 	Gallerizzo, 	174 F.3d 394, 411 n.14 (4th Cir.1999)). Thus, 	o
impose sanctions under § 1927, the court must find that the attorney acted to multiply the
proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously, the attorney acted in bad faith, and that there is a
ous multiplication of
Boshea 	v. 	Compass Mktg., Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-21-309, 2025 WL
3033933, at *14 (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2025) (quoting 	Six, 891 F.3d at 520).
Collins 	v. 	Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., No. 2:09CV486, 2010 WL 9499078, at *3 (E.D. Va. May 28, 2010) (quoting 	Salvin
v. 	281 Fed. Appx. 222, 225 (4th Cir. 2008)). Although the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Bradley 	v. 	Analytical Grammar, Inc., No. 19-CV-249, 2022 WL
2678887, at *3 (E.D.N.C. July 11, 2022) (collecting cases from the United States Courts of
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 11 of 26

12
Appeal for the First, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits). 	O]bjective bad faith does
not require a finding of malice or ill will; reckless indifference to the law will qualify. 	Collins,
2010 WL 9499078, at *3 (quoting 	Dal Pozzo 	v. 	Basic Mach. Co., 463 F.3d 609, 614 (7th Cir.
2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted); 	accord 	Coghlan 	v. 	Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 814 (5th
Cir. 1988); 	Reliance Ins. Co. 	v. 	Sweeney Corp., Md., 792 F.2d 1137, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. 	v. 	Kartha Pharms., Inc., No.
3:21-CV-133-MOC-DCK, 2024 WL 203238, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2024). Thus, if counsel
to be unsound, the conduct is objectively unreasonable and vexatiou 	Collins, 	2010 WL
9499078, at *3 (quoting 	Dal Pozzo, 463 F.3d at 614); 	see also 	United States 	v. 	Allergan, Inc.,
Civil Action No. SAG-17-668, 2024 WL 2882125, at *6 (D. Md. May 30, 2024) (same).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides, in pertinent part, that
court a pleading, written motion, or other paper 	whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later
advocating it
presented for any improper purpose
that 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1), (3). This rule
authorizes the court to impose an appropriate sanction following compliance with identified
procedural protections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)-(3).
9 The provisions 	have always applied to motions
and other papers by virtue of incorporation by reference in Rule 7(b)(2). 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 11,
advisory 	to 1983 amendment.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 12 of 26

13
Fahrenz 	v. 	, 850
F.2d 207, 210 (4th Cir. 1988); 	see also 	In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505, 518 (4th Cir. 1990).
reasonable to believe at the time the pleading, motion, or other paper w 	Miltier 	v.
Downes
note to 1983 amendment); 	see also 	Brubaker, 	943 F.2d at
Rule 11).
and counsel must ensure that each paper filed has merit in order to avoi 	Brubaker,
943 F.2d at 1382, n.24. Thus,
potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable and by generally
providing protection against sanctions if they 	withdraw or correct contentions after a potential
violation is called to their attention. 	Sterling 	v. 	Ourisman Chevrolet of Bowie Inc., Civil
Action No. PWG-12-3193, 2016 WL 11643614, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2016) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11 advisory committee note to 1993 amendment) (emphasis in original).
. . .
Neal 	v. 	Frayer, Civil Action No. BAH-24-778, 2025 WL 3204710, at *14 (D. Md. Nov. 17,
2025) (quoting 	Kruglyak 	v. 	Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 3d 767, 769 (W.D. Va.
2025)) (internal quotation marks omitted); 	see also 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). Prior to imposing a
sanction, a court must issue a show-cause order or otherwise put the relevant party on notice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(B); 	Lewin 	v. 	Cooke, 28 Fed. Appx. 186, 195-196 (4th Cir. 2002)
notice, identified the potentially sanctionable conduct, and requested briefing on the issue,
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 13 of 26

14
satisfied the show-
potential Rule 11 violation 	sua sponte. 	Hunter 	v. 	Earthgrains Co. Bakery, 281 F.3d 144, 151
(4th Cir. 2002).
Id. 	at
157.
monetary sanctions, although the purpose of such an award varies under each vehicle. A court
rty has acted in bad faith,
Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45-
1927 is compensatory in nature
Six 	11, the primary purpose of sanctions against counsel is not to
Hunter, 281 F.3d at 151
(quoting 	In re Kunstler,
rather than to compensate, the rule provides that, if a monetary sanction is imposed, it should
to 1993
amendment.
Prior to imposing a monetary sanction under Section 1927 or Rule 11, a court must
E.g., 	Caseres 	v. 	S & R Mgmt. Co., LLC, Civil Action No. AW
12-1358, 2013 WL 5781582, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2013) (citing 	Salvin, 281 Fed. Appx. at 226).
The party being sanctioned has the burden 	to come forward with evidence of an inability to
pay. 	Fidelity & Guar. Life Ins. Co. 	v. 	Harrod, Civil Action No. CCB-05-2732, 2008 WL
2246518, at *5 (D. Md. Apr. 15, 2008), 	aff 	d sub nom., 334 Fed. Appx. 572 (4th Cir. 2009); 	see
also 	In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d at 524.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 14 of 26

15
. . . should be treated as reasonably akin to an affirmative defense, with the burden upon the
Salvin, 281
Fed. Appx. at 226 (quoting 	In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d at 524) (alteration in original).10
Finally, there is the issue of the applicable evidentiary standard. The Fourth Circuit has
not addressed this issue directly. 	Six 	-
and-convincing evidence standard might apply to a finding of bad faith before awarding
several decisions of this
Court have applied the heightened clear and convincing evidentiary standard when evaluating
motions for sanctions based on inherent authority, Section 1927, and Rule 11. 	E.g., 	Johnson 	v.
, Civil Action No. ELH-19-0698, 2022 WL 9976525, at *36 (D. Md. Oct.
14, 2022); 	Glynn 	v. 	EDO Corp., Civil Action No. JFM-07-1660, 2010 WL 3294347, at *2 (D.
Md. Aug. 20, 2010). As a sister court from this Circuit has explained:
with caution and discretion, some circuits have held that clear and
convincing evidence of bad faith and vexatious behavior is required
for a court to exercise its inherent authority to sanction. Although
the Fourth Circuit appears not to have addressed the issue, this Court
believes it, too, would adopt the clear and convincing evidence
standard with regard to the Court 	s inherent power to sanction.
10 Plaintiffs also move for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(c)(1)(C)
provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not
allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a
ECF No. 149 at 1, 12; Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C). Subsection (c) of Rule 37, which is
Supplement an Earlier Response, or to Admit, 	addresses the available sanctions for failure to
comply with Rule 26(a) and (e), which, in turn, address required initial, expert, and pretrial
disclosures, and supplementation of the same. Plaintiffs have not clearly articulated how this
rule offers an avenue for the relief they seek. Moreover,
Rule 37(c)(1) 	nondisclosure
Southern States Rack and Fixture, Inc. 	v. 	Sherwin-Williams
Co., 318 F.3d 592, 596 (4th Cir. 2003). Nondisclosure of relevant evidence is not at issue here.
The undersigned therefore declines to consider imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 15 of 26

16
Balcar 	v. 	Bell & Assocs., LLC, 295 F. Supp. 2d 635, 640 (N.D.W. Va.) (internal citations
omitted), 	, 83 Fed. Appx. 519 (4th Cir. 2003). The undersigned concurs and therefore
applies the clear and convincing standard.
United States 	v. 	Welsh, 564 Fed. Appx. 727, 728 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting
United States 	v. 	Antone, 742 F.3d 151, 159 (4th Cir. 2014)).
2. 	Prior Filings and Proceedings
Evaluation of the appropriate sanction, if any, requires a more granular discussion of BFS
and filings leading up to resolution of the instant motion, as well as analysis
of
allegations. In support of their summary judgment motion, BFS Defendants relied on the
fraudulent certificate of insurance to establish that Conaway had insurance during the relevant
timeframe. ECF Nos. 124; 124-3 ¶ 26 (Ex. 2; Ex. 10); 124-4 at 3, 10. Plaintiffs then filed a
notice of intent to move for sanctions based on allegations that BFS Defendants had
their summary judgment motion. ECF No.
125-1 at 6. To support their allegations, Plaintiffs relied on the sequence of events regarding
production of their expert report and 	the fraudulent certificate of
insurance. ECF No. 125-
Plaintiffs filed as proposed exhibits Mr. Rovn 	March 4, 2025 declaration and affidavit in
which he attested that the certificate of insurance appeared to be (or was) a fraudulent document
and identified irregularities on the face of the document. ECF No. 125-1 at 14 	15.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 16 of 26

17
BFS Defendants argued in their respons 	that
, that the proposed motion for sanctions
Mr.
. ECF No. 129 at 1, 5. During the July 30, 2025
status conference before Judge Griggsby, counsel for BFS Defendants discussed various exhibits
to its response and argued that it was 	not possible for BFS [Defendants] to have created this
document, but rather that it was [ ] a document provided by Patrick Montgomery to Mr.
133 at 14:25 	15:3.
Id. 	at 18:8 	9; 	see also 	id. 	at 19:1
no question that this [certificate of insurance] is not only legitimate but has been substantiated
United States Magistrate Judge,
the undersigned held a conference on September 24, 2025, at which time BFS Defendants argued
that the undersigned should either deny the motion for sanctions because the certificate of
, as Judge
Griggsby described it,
insurance (ECF No. 133 at 31:11
facilitate resolution of the question of authenticity (ECF No. 137 at 1). The
deadline for completion of this limited discovery was November 7, 2025. ECF No. 137 at 2.
On October 2, 2025, BFS Defendants sought, and were granted the following day, leave
to depose Mr. Montgomery, whose employment with Braddock had concluded. ECF Nos. 138,
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 17 of 26

18
141. On November 7, 2025, BFS Defendants moved for an extension of time to complete the
limited discovery because, on the advice of counsel, Mr. Montgomery did not appear for his
scheduled deposition that day. ECF No. 142 ¶¶ 15 	19. Plaintiffs opposed the request, arguing
that the corporate designee depositions of Braddock and Rovner had already established that the
1, 6 	8. BFS Defendants argued in reply
. . .
ECF No. 147 ¶¶ 2, 4. Following briefing of this issue, on
November 14, 2025, the undersigned granted BFS Defendants one week to take Mr.
No. 148. As noted, Mr. Montgomery invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination at the deposition and, thus, did not offer any substantive response regarding
alteration of the certificate of insurance. ECF No. 149-7; 	see also, I.B., 	supra.
With the benefit of the additional limited discovery, Plaintiffs no longer contend that BFS
Defendants fabricated the inauthentic document. ECF No. 149. Nor could they. The motive and
precise sequence of events surrounding falsification of the certificate remain uncertain, but no
evidence has been adduced to support Plaintiffs 	initial allegation that BFS Defendants and their
counsel fraudulently created the inauthentic document. Instead, Plaintiffs now argue that
Defendants] and its counsel produced [in discovery],
filed, relied upon, and continued to rely upon a fraudulent and objectively illegitimate August
rely up
Id. 	at 12.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 18 of 26

19
BFS Defendants
the inauthentic certificate and instead
representations. 	ECF No. 150 at 2. Inexplicably, in this same filing, BFS Defendants shy away
from categorically identifying the certificate of insurance as fraudulent, while simultaneously
attempting to leverage it to their advantage. BFS Defendants argue, for example,
[certificate of insurance] 	even if, for purposes of this motion, it is accepted that Mr.
Montgomery altered it improperly after it was issued 	is nevertheless relevant, probative
Id. 	at 18 (emphasis added); 	see also id.
were themselves deceived with regard to the alterations, although the [certificate of insurance]
BFS Defendants persist in their inability (or unwillingness) to appreciate that the authenticity of
the certificate of insurance is distinct from the existence (or non-existence) of insurance coverage
during the relevant timeframe. 	Compare 	ECF No. 133 at 21:10 	21, 22:2 	10, 23:2 	24:17 	with
ECF No. 150 at 18.
3. 	Applicable Sanctions
BFS Defendants ultimately conceded at the January 20, 2026 motion hearing that the
certificate of insurance is fraudulent and should be stricken from the record. ECF No. 159. The
undersigned concurs. At minimum, the altered, inauthentic document cannot be considered by
As the Fourth Circuit
foundation that truth is the object of the sy
Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d at
insight into truth, the process depends on the adversarial presentation of evidence . . . and
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 19 of 26

20
argument to reasoned conclusions 	all directed with unwavering effort to what . . . is believed to
Id. 	the slightest
accommodation of deceit or a lack of candor in any material respect quickly erodes the validity
Id.
Id.; 	see also 	Dickens
public interest in the integrity of the judicial process is paramount. The public must be able to
BFS Defendants and their counsel have undermined the truth-seeking function of the
Court through their continued reliance on a document that is indisputably fraudulent in support
of their summary judgment motion. Although the fraudulent certificate of insurance appears to
have been prepared by another individual (Mr. Montgomery) and not the BFS Defendants
themselves as Plaintiffs initially alleged, BFS Defendants nonetheless have sought to reap
benefits from the fraudulent document in this action. Importantly, BFS Defendants refused to
disavow the fraudulent document for months, and they have yet to file anything with the Court to
reflect their position that the document should be stricken from the summary judgment record 	a
position articulated for the fir
admission that she had known it was fraudulent for at least 75 days. ECF No. 159. The question
is whether any further sanction beyond striking the fraudulent document is warranted. In light of
the applicable clear and convincing evidentiary standard and the cautions that permeate
precedential case law regarding the imposition of sanctions, the undersigned concludes that they
are not.
The undersigned begins with sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because sanctions
are even more closely guarded. 	Shaffer Equip. Co.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 20 of 26

21
As the statutory
language makes clear, Section 1927 requires the unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of
proceedings as a prerequisite to imposition of any sanction. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. It cannot be said
by clear and convincing evidence that BFS Defendants have done so here.
BFS Defendants assert that once Plaintiffs raised the issue of the
ECF No. 150 at 9. BFS Defendants
insurance] at issue, 	id. 	at 14, which they correctly 	was approved by this Court on
multiple occasions 	id.; 	see also 	ECF Nos. 137; 141; 146. The undersigned approved BFS
he issue of authenticity in light of the
contested issues of fact and the severity of the allegations Plaintiffs had levied against BFS
Defendants and their counsel. ECF No. 141. BFS Defendants conducted the limited discovery
diligently and acted expeditiously to clarify the circumstances surrounding production of the
fraudulent document. Although Plaintiffs opposed an extension of the limited discovery to
depose Mr. Montgomery, the undersigned does not find it unreasonable that BFS Defendants
wanted to question the individual who apparently falsified the document to gain greater clarity
surrounding the motive and circumstances surrounding its production. Ultimately, Mr.
Montgomery 	did not add anything of substance, but that does not undercut the
validity of the additional discovery or render the conduct of the same unreasonable or
vexatious.11
11 	The undersigned notes, however, that upon completion of the limited discovery, BFS
Defendants and their counsel did not act with the same diligence in connection with the briefing
of the instant motion.
August 28, 2020 certificate of insurance has in some respects resulted in the unnecessary
expenditure of resources by the parties and the Court. Had BFS Defendants simply
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 21 of 26

22
As noted, 	see 	II.B.1., 	supra, Section 1927 sanctions require a showing of bad faith.
While the objective bad faith standard is less stringent, it nevertheless requires recklessly
indifferent or extremely negligent conduct. 	Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A., 2024 WL
203238, at *1. Here, that standard is not satisfied given that there is no evidence that BFS
Defendants knew the document was fraudulent when they moved for summary judgment.
Further, once 	s, BFS Defendants undertook reasonable, timely,
and court-approved steps to investigate the question of the 	authenticity.
In contrast, cases in which the Fourth Circuit has affirmed an award of sanctions pursuant
to Section 1927 involve affirmative steps to advance baseless claims or otherwise delay
litigation. 	E.g., 	Six 	-year crusade to suppress the
Salvin
Sweetland, 241 Fed. Appx. at 97 (counsel pursued claims knowing that they lacked evidentiary
support, took affirmative steps to stall discovery, and filed a motion for summary judgment
acknowledged in their memorandum of law in opposition to the imposition of sanctions that the
certificate of insurance was inauthentic 	a fact they admit they had known for more than one
month at the time of their filing 	resolution of this motion would have been substantially
truncated. Instead, BFS Defendants have continued to muddy the waters by advancing collateral
issues, such as whether Conaway was in fact insured regardless of the authenticity of the
certificate of insurance, and attempting to leverage the fraudulent document in support of their
in this regard is not, however, a sufficient basis upon which to award sanctions pursuant to
Section 1927. 	E.g., 	DeBauche 	v. 	Trani, 	191 F.3d 499, 511-512 (4th Cir. 1999) (concluding, as a
matter of law, that filing one document cannot be held to have multiplied the proceedings
unreasonably and vexatiously); 	In re Cohen 	v. 	Fox, Nos. 94-2652, 95-1008, 1997 WL 577583,
at *4, 122 F.3d 1060 (Table) (4th Cir. Sept. 17, 1997) (holding, as a matter of law,
-
.
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 22 of 26

23
based on unsupported claims); 	Fahrenz, 850 F.2d at 210 (counsel moved for summary judgment
Given that Section 1927 sanctions are not warranted, the same holds true for inherent
authority sanctions. 	Sanford 	v. 	Commonwealth of Va., 689 F. Supp. 2d 802, 813 (E.D. Va.
2010), 	abrogated on other grounds by, McKenzie 	v. 	Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 	497 Fed. Appx. 305 (4th
almost always something more egregious than that 	. This
is especially so here because 	fraud, deceit, misrepresentation,
harassment and unethical conduct, 	Harvey, 48 F.4th at 281, let alone clear and convincing
evidence of the same, 	e.g., 	Johnson, 2022 WL 9976525, at *36.
The undersigned likewise concludes that Rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate. Plaintiffs
their summary judgment motion. ECF No. 149 at 1. Yet, there is no evidence that BFS
Defendants knew the certificate was fraudulent at the time they filed their motion. 	Cf. 	Dickens,
Submitting falsified documents, making untrue statements in a
declaration, and then making further false statements as a cover up, is a textbook violation of
Rule 11(b). 	As noted, 	see 	II.B., supra, the Court may
must instead evaluate the filings at the time of submission. 	Brubaker, 943 F.2d at 1382; 	Miltier,
To the
extent that Plaintiffs argue that BFS Defendants have not corrected the record, it must be noted
that Rule 11 does not impose a duty to correct, amend, or supplement. 	Brubaker, 943 F.2d at
1382; 	Mann 	v. 	Gomez, No. 3:20-CV-820, 2022 WL 2077952, at *8 (E.D. Va. June 9, 2022).
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 23 of 26

24
To be sure, Rule 11 prohibits advocating for a position for which there is no evidentiary
support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)-(c); 	In re Hudson, 24 Fed. Appx. 153, 154-155 (4th Cir. 2001)
upon wage calculations that were shown to be inaccurate and fraudulent in discovery). BFS
Defendants have not yet done so, even if they came close to the line with their attempt to argue
that the fraudulent document is nonetheless probative of and relevant to disputed issues in the
case. ECF No. 150 at 18. Even so 	there is a distinct difference
between an intentional attempt to deceive and an attempt at zealous advocacy that inadvertently
Allergan, Inc., 2024 WL 2882125, at *8. It remains
to be seen whether BFS Defendants will persist in their attempt to leverage the fraudulent
certificate of insurance in connection with the pending motion for summary judgment or other
matters related to the substance of the p 	. The undersigned cautions
BFS Defendants and their counsel that doing so may very
against advocating for a position that lacks evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3).
When evaluating the propriety of Rule 11 sanctions against BFS Defendants, it cannot be
overlooked that the factual basis underlying Plaintiffs 	initial allegations against BFS Defendants
and their counsel, which called into question their ethics and the candor of counsel, is unclear.
supported 	the
inauthenticity of the certificate of insurance, but the allegation that BFS Defendants and their
counsel fabricated the certificate did not enjoy the same evidentiary support. Indeed,
initial notice relied on nothing more than conclusory assumptions based on the timing and
sequence of events, which ultimately were not borne out by the subsequent limited discovery.
Just as grave as the submission of a falsified document is an ill-founded accusation of the same.
Equal Emp 	v. 	Great Steaks, Inc., 667 F.3d 510, 523 (4th Cir. 2012)
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 24 of 26

25
vexatiously multiplied the proceedings).
The fact that additional sanctions beyond striking the fraudulent document are not being
imposed (or recommended, as to a sanction that would call for dispositive relief) does not equate
to a finding that the undersigned condones the actions of BFS Defendants and their counsel. As
was made plain during the motion hearing, even if not sanctionable conduct, the undersigned
finds it inconceivable that an officer of the court would not seek to immediately correct the
record upon learning that an exhibit filed in support of a request for substantive relief from the
court was fraudulent. Failure to do so diminishes both the integrity of the tribunal and the
The undersigned notes that the Maryland
duty to correct the record. In particular, Rule 19-303.3(a) provides, in pertinent part, that an
attorney shall not knowingly
made to the tribunal by the atto 	Md. Rule 19-303.3(a)(1). This same rule further provides
Id. at 19-303.3(a)(4).
To date, counsel for BFS Defendants has yet to correct the existing record or take any
remedial measures with respect to the pending summary judgment motion, which is supported in
part by a document that BFS Defendants and their counsel know to be fraudulent. The proffered
rationale that no filing was warranted because Judge Griggsby has held the summary judgment
motion in abeyance pending resolution of the instant motion is unpersuasive. ECF Nos. 150 at
15 	16; 159. Recognition of the fraudulent nature of the certificate of insurance is in no way at
ECF No. 132. Moreover, it dovetails precisely
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 25 of 26

26
with the one of the substantive questions pending before the undersigned and therefore would
have promoted greater efficiency in resolving the instant motion. Consistent with Rule 19-
303.3(a)(1) and (4), BFS Defendants shall correct the record and take any appropriate remedial
measures with respect to the fraudulent certificate of insurance, which they tendered to the Court
as an exhibit to their pending summary judgment motion.
the
principle that lawyers, who serve as officers of the court, have the first line task of assuring the
Shaffer Equip. Co.
Id. 	While an
lorable claims and defenses, the canons of professional
McCoy 	v. 	Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist.
1
Id. 	at 440; 	Six, 891 F.3d at 519 (same).
III. 	CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED
granted in part and denied in part. A separate Order follows.
Date: February 25, 2026 	/s/
Erin Aslan
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:23-cv-01365-LKG Document 164 Filed 02/25/26 Page 26 of 26