*6 Accordingly, though Drucker did not violate a specific Court order, the Court has the inherent power to sanction him for his litigation misconduct. See
Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union 58, IBEW v. Gary's Elec., 340 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir.2003) (holding that “if a corporate officer avoids a court's order to the corporation by failing to take action or attempt compliance,” the officer may be punished for contempt and “it is fully appropriate to impose judicial sanctions on the nonparty corporate officer.' ”) (quoting
Wilson v. U.S., 221 U.S. 361, 376, 31 S.Ct. 538, 55 L.Ed. 771 (1911); citing
U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 303–4, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947)); see also
Manez v. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC, 533 F.3d 578, 585 (7th Cir.2008) (“No matter who allegedly commits a fraud on the court—a party, an attorney, or a nonparty witness—the court has the inherent power to conduct proceedings to investigate that allegation and, if it is proven, to punish that conduct.”); David v. Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 420–21 (9th Cir.1977) (affirming district court's order requiring corporate defendant's sole nonparty officer to pay plaintiff's expenses resulting from corporate defendant's failure to answer interrogatories); Thomas Am. Corp. v. Fitzgerald, 175 F.R.D. 462, 464, 466–67 (S.D.N.Y.) (1997) (ordering corporate plaintiff's former CEO to pay a fine pursuant to Rule 11 for filing a declaration that contained a factual misstatement); Jung, 2009 WL 762835, at *15 (sanctioning the nonparty husband and father of plaintiffs, who managed and funded the litigation on his family's behalf, for tampering with audio tapes in evidence); Helmac Products Corp. v. Roth (Plastics) Corp., 150 F.R.D. 563, 564–68 (E.D.Mi.1993) (holding that the court has the inherent power to sanction a nonparty that is not subject to court order if the nonparty had a substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation and substantially participated in the proceedings).