With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". delay in raising the safe harbor issue reflects it was not a significant issue for them until the Recusal Motion was denied and they recognized they may be subject to sanctions. They had numerous opportunities to bring the issue to the Court’s attention and did not raise it until they were directed to file a response to the Sanctions Motion (see Order entered on April 10, 2007 (Doc. No. 1648)). The Respondents should not be allowed to escape liability where Evergreen substantially complied, but did not strictly comply with Rule 9011, and such noncompliance caused the Respondents no prejudice. Where the safe harbor provision of Rule 9011 was substantially complied with a sanctions motion should be heard on the merits. See Nisenbaum v. Milwaukee County, 333 F.3d 804, 808 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Hadden v. Letzgus, 1997 WL 434413, 121 F.3d

A: holding that rule 11 applied to a letter sent with the intent to influence the court with respect to injunctive relief
B: holding defendants were entitled to a decision on the merits on rule 11 sanctions where they substantially complied with rule 11c1a by sending a letter rather than serving a motion
C: holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation
D: holding that a warning letter substantially complied with rule 11 by alerting nisenbaum to the problem and giving him more than twentyone days to desist
B.