in the sanction proceedings, the court's prior factual findings in this matter require the court to impose an additional sanction against the Esso Defendants and their former counsel. Having canvassed the literature, both commentary and case law, concerning sanctions, the court has identified few alternatives to the routine monetary sanction of fee shifting. Nevertheless, the court is undeterred from its mission of fashioning an appropriate sanction and is willing to adopt a novel, innovative approach. See, Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44-45. Pursuant to its inherent powers, the court has considered both the imposition of a fine on the Esso Defend al Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116, 129, 40 L. Ed. 2d 703, 94 S. Ct. 2157 (1974) (same); Lockary v. Kayfetz, 974 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Titus, 695 F.2d at 749 n. 6 (recognizing the
recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals recognizing courts inherent power to impose sanctions including attorneys fees for conduct that abuses the judicial process recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions on parties recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions to the lawyers firm or employer recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants