Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority
| Decision Date | 27 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1971,91-1971 |
| Citation | 962 F.2d 589 |
| Parties | Jeannie NEWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN PIER & EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Edward E. Robinson, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Gerard B. Gallagher, Robert J. Morrow, Gallagher & Joslyn, Oakbrook Terrace, Ill., Joseph M. Condron, John J. Fitzgerald, Ruben B. Shehigian, Jr., Claudia J. Sanders, John N. Dore, Sanders, Smith & Cross, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority.
Harlene G. Matyas, Matyas & Norris, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee Cahners Exposition Group.
Glenn F. Fencl, Joseph F. Spitzzeri, Cole, Grasso, Fencl & Skinner, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee Kaufman Iron Works, Inc.
Harlene G. Matyas, Matyas & Norris, Chicago, Ill., Kathryn M. James, Judge & James, Park Ridge, Ill., for defendant-appellee American Hardware Mfrs. Ass'n.
Before POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and PELL, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a suit, with prejudice, as a sanction for the plaintiff's failure to cooperate in pretrial discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C).
The complaint in this diversity tort suit, filed in August 1989, claimed that the plaintiff, a Californian, had on a business trip to Chicago been injured in a slip-and-fall accident in the McCormick Place convention center as a result of the negligence of the defendants--the operator of the convention center, the sponsor of the trade show that the plaintiff was attending, the furnisher of the display where the accident took place, and the maker of that display. Damages of $1.5 million were asked. After the defendants tried unsuccessfully to depose the plaintiff in May 1990, the district judge at their request ordered the plaintiff to appear in Chicago for her deposition by August 27. She did not appear, and the court set a new deadline of December 19, 1990. At a status hearing on October 26 the plaintiff's lawyer asked whether the deposition might be conducted by telephone, but upon the defendants' objecting the court said that that would not be acceptable. At the next status hearing, on January 4, 1991, the judge learned that the plaintiff had failed to appear for her deposition by the deadline and also had not completed her response to the defendants' interrogatories. At this hearing the plaintiff's lawyer renewed his request that the deposition be conducted by telephone. A motion that he had filed the previous day had disclosed for the first time a reason: that his client could not afford the round trip airfare from California, although she was (despite the injury that had given rise to the suit) once again employed, and earning $1,600 a month. The judge denied the motion but with leave to reconsider should the plaintiff's lawyer submit documentation substantiating the contention that his client could not afford to come to Chicago. The judge at this hearing also set new deadlines for completion of discovery from the plaintiff, including a deadline of February 8 for the deposition, later extended to March 15. When on March 26 the plaintiff had neither appeared for her deposition nor complied with the deadlines for answering the interrogatories nor submitted documentation of her financial distress, the judge dismissed the suit.
The plaintiff argues that the record does not show that she was acting in bad faith in failing to come to Chicago to be deposed and that in any event the district judge should have explored the feasibility of a less severe sanction than dismissal with prejudice. In other words she asks us to rewrite Rule 37 so that it provides in pertinent part that if a party willfully fails to obey a discovery order the judge may dismiss the suit if no lesser sanction would suffice. There are cases that she could cite to support this recasting of the rule, notably Trakas v. Quality Brands, Inc., 759 F.2d 185 (D.C.Cir.1985), a case factually much like this. A divided panel, describing dismissal as "an extremely harsh sanction" that should be limited to "egregious conduct" and is "to be applied only after less dire alternatives have been explored without success," id. at 186-87, reversed the district court's dismissal of a suit brought by a person who informed her lawyer the weekend before trial "that due solely to lack of funds she could not get to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Select Creations, Inc. v. Paliafito America, Inc., 91-C-1240
...cases have not required such a finding. Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 303 (7th Cir.1992). See also Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 962 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir.1992); Profile Gear Corp. v. Foundry Allied Industries, Inc., 937 F.2d 351 (7th Cir.1991) (affirms default jud......
-
Ball v. City of Chicago
...labor relations is termed "progressive discipline"--before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute. Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 962 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir.1992); Lockhart v. Sullivan, supra, 925 F.2d at 219; Daniels v. Brennan, 887 F.2d 783, 788-89 (7th Cir.1989);......
-
Otis v. City of Chicago
...must submit to discovery in litigation they initiate, and failure to do so leads straight to dismissal. Newman v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 962 F.2d 589 (7th Cir.1992). Although not required to do so, Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 632, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389-90, 8 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Advisors v. Pence
...Co., 107 F.3d 510, 514 (7th Cir.2003) (quoting Crown Life Ins. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376, 1382 (7th Cir.1993); Newman v. Metro. Pier & Expo. Auth., 962 F.2d 589, 591 (7th Cir.1992)). With these guiding principles in mind, the Court examines the scope of ESI exclusion in the Sanctions Order. R......