effort to ensure that the documents would not be seen by anyone other than Chief Judge Damich. See Response to Government’s January 9, 2008 Brief Regarding Sanctions or Remedies as Requested in the Court’s December 12, 2007 Order (Pl.’s Resp.) 8. Plaintiff’s counsel's view of the harmlessness of disclosing the documents only to Chief Judge Damich notwithstanding, the fact is that this action was a violation of the Order Amending Protective Order, and plaintiff’s counsel should have known it. 6 . Although penalties for contempt and sanctions under the court’s inherent authority are not identical, most courts treat them similarly in determining what requirements are necessary to impose them. See F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Order Amending Protective Order was
recognizing that references to and descriptions of the jurys verdict as advisory as a recommendation and of the judge as the final sentencing authority are permissible under romano v oklahoma 512 us 1 114 sct 2004 129 led2d 1 1994 holding that regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny quoting turner broad sys inc v fed commcn commn 512 us 622 642 114 sct 2445 129 led2d 497 1994 plurality opinion recognizing and applying from united mine workers rule holding that the rule announced in simmons v south carolina 512 us 154 114 sct 2187 129 led2d 133 1994 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review holding that although contempt and sanctions are not identical the principles the supreme court articulated for cases of contempt in international union united mine workers of america v bagwell 512 us 821 114 sct 2552 129 led2d 642 1994 guide our determination of what procedural protections are necessary in imposing sanctions under a courts inherent powers