Lee v. Walters
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
172 F.R.D. 421 (1997)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Vicky Lee and another (plaintiffs) sued Walters and others (defendants) in federal court. During discovery, the plaintiffs requested production of documents, but the defendants did not submit a written response and only belatedly produced the documents after the plaintiffs asked the court for assistance. The defendants failed to appear at depositions. The defendants’ attorney, an experienced attorney named Barnes, said he would seek a protective order, but did not do so. As a result of Barnes’s dilatory tactics, the plaintiffs filed three motions to compel production. Barnes claimed he had a busy litigation schedule and travelled often. However, Barnes never indicated to opposing counsel or the court that he had no time for depositions; Barnes just ignored requests. Barnes and the defendants ignored or disobeyed four court orders and made no discovery responses at all. Lee moved the court for sanctions totaling $10,000 against the defendants and Barnes under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 37(a)(4)(A), (b), and (d); 26(g); and the court’s inherent authority.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
