Short answer. Yes. Section 6 lets the court, if satisfied that affidavits under this Rule were presented in bad faith or solely to cause delay, order the offending party or counsel to pay the other party's reasonable expenses caused by the filing, including attorney's fees, and after a hearing may also adjudge the offending party or counsel guilty of contempt.
What the law says
Should it appear to its satisfaction at any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this Rule are presented in bad faith, or solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the offending party or counsel to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused him or her to incur, including attorney's fees
Rule 35, Section 6 — Affidavits in bad faith. Read the full provision →
The standard for triggering sanctions
The court must be satisfied that the affidavit was presented in bad faith, or solely for the purpose of delay — a finding about the motive behind the filing, not simply that the affidavit turned out to be wrong or unpersuasive. An affidavit that was honestly mistaken, or that simply failed to convince the court, does not by itself meet this standard, since Section 6 targets the intent behind the filing rather than its ultimate accuracy or persuasiveness.
The mandatory expense order
Once that finding is made, the court 'shall forthwith' order the offending party or counsel to pay the other party's reasonable expenses caused by the affidavit's filing, including attorney's fees — this part is not left to discretion once bad faith or delay is found. The word 'shall' removes the court's choice on whether to order payment at all, even though the amount of reasonable expenses still calls for the court's own assessment of what the filing actually cost.
The additional contempt option
Beyond the expense order, and after a hearing, the court may also adjudge the offending party or counsel guilty of contempt, adding a further consequence on top of the financial one. Unlike the expense order, this contempt finding is discretionary and requires its own separate hearing before the court may impose it, giving the accused party or counsel a genuine chance to respond to the contempt charge specifically.
Why this deterrent exists
Because summary judgment relies heavily on affidavits to establish or dispute facts without a full trial, allowing bad-faith or delay-driven affidavits to go unchecked would undermine the whole mechanism, letting a party manufacture a false factual dispute simply to avoid an otherwise warranted summary judgment. Pairing mandatory expenses with discretionary contempt gives the court both a routine deterrent and a stronger tool for the more serious cases of abuse.
Related provisions
- Rule 35, Section 6 — Affidavits in bad faith
- Rule 35, Section 5 — Form of affidavits and supporting papers