Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(B)(2)

70 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Iberia Hampton v. Hanrahan
  600 F.2d 600· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-23 ·cited 187×
  The court holds that a jury could sustain a verdict for plaintiffs on one or more theories of liability, but recovery for damages from the raid requires the unlawful raid or excessive force to be within the objects of a conspiracy. Damages for reputational injury alone are not re
• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes
  449 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1971-09-01 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed the district court's default judgment and subsequent damages award, finding that the defendant's willful refusal to produce Howard Hughes for a deposition justified the severe sanction of default.
• Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.
  762 F.2d 1334· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court lacked authority under its inherent powers or Rule 37(d) to impose sanctions against Honda Limited and exceeded its discretion by granting partial default judgment against American Honda.
• In re the Attorney Gen. OF the United States v. The Attorney Gen.
  596 F.2d 58· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-19 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the contempt order against the Attorney General was not appealable but granted a writ of mandamus to vacate the order, finding the district court abused its discretion by not sufficiently considering alternative sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2).
• Emerick v. Fenick Indus., Inc.
  539 F.2d 1379· 5th Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by striking the appellant's answer and counterclaim and entering judgment for the appellees due to flagrant disregard of discovery orders.
• Searock v. Stripling
  736 F.2d 650· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that dismissal of a counterclaim as a sanction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) is an abuse of discretion when the party's noncompliance is due to inability after a good faith effort, rather than willfulness, bad faith, or fault.
• Syracuse Broad. Corp. v. Newhouse
  271 F.2d 910· 2d Cir.· 1959-11-05 ·cited 40×
  The court held that dismissal of the complaint was improper and that the preclusion order was too broad in certain respects, requiring reversal and remand.
• VON Brimer v. Whirlpool Corp.
  536 F.2d 838· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 36×
  A proprietary interest in a patent is necessary for claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective business advantage, but not for malicious prosecution. Evidence excluded due to discovery violations was proper.
• Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline
  845 F.2d 1300· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 34×
• Liew v. Breen
  640 F.2d 1046· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the identities of Breen's clients were discoverable and not protected by attorney-client privilege, but remanded the case to recalculate attorney's fees to exclude costs incurred before Breen's failure to obey the discovery order.
• Dorsey v. Acad. Moving & Storage, Inc.
  423 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1970-04-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions of dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders when the plaintiff demonstrated inability to comply, not willfulness or bad faith.
• Jones v. Uris Sales Corp. & Morton Penn
  373 F.2d 644· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that striking the defendant's answer and entering a default judgment was permissible due to his persistent failure to comply with discovery orders, but modified the award of attorney fees to be paid from the corporate recovery rather than by the defendant individua
• Founding Church OF Scientology OF Wash. v. Webster
  802 F.2d 1448· D.C. Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 for the founder's failure to appear for a court-ordered deposition, as he was deemed a managing agent of the organization.
• Denton v. MR. Swiss OF Mo., Inc.
  564 F.2d 236· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the antitrust count due to flagrant noncompliance with discovery orders, but improperly granted summary judgment on the counterclaim without a proper motion or hearing.
• Thomas v. United States
  531 F.2d 746· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that dismissing a taxpayer's refund action and entering judgment on the government's counterclaim for failure to answer discovery, when the refusal was based on Fifth Amendment privilege, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  634 F.2d 1215· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-29 ·cited 25×
  The court held that an order compelling discovery and awarding attorneys' fees as a sanction is interlocutory and not immediately appealable.
• Velazquez-Rivera v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.
  920 F.2d 1072· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-18 ·cited 22×
  The court held that dismissal of the action was an excessive sanction for the attorney's inadvertent failure to appear at a pretrial conference, constituting an abuse of discretion.
• M.E.N. Co. v. Control Fluidics, Inc.
  834 F.2d 869· 10th Cir.· 1987-12-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a default judgment is a harsh sanction requiring findings of willfulness, bad faith, or fault by the party, and that the district court erred by not making specific findings on the defendants' personal fault and by not explicitly considering sanctions against
• Evanson v. Union OIL Co. OF Cal.
  619 F.2d 72· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1980-04-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the order imposing sanctions for false interrogatory answers was not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable, and denied the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition.
• Geiserman v. MacDONALD
  893 F.2d 787· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing discovery timetables by striking the plaintiff's late expert witness designation and granting summary judgment.
• Smith v. Schlesinger
  513 F.2d 462· D.C. Cir.· 1975-05-15 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the investigative file was potentially relevant for discovery, even if not part of the administrative record, because it could shed light on the basis for the security clearance denial and the procedural fairness of the administrative proceedings.
• Jaffe v. Grant
  793 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction over the counterclaim and properly gave full faith and credit to the state court's judgment, and that the sanctions imposed were just.
• In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation. Appeal of John W. Culy
  647 F.2d 460· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 18×
  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a contempt order issued by a district judge acting outside his designated district.
• Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes
  515 F.2d 173· 2d Cir.· 1975-03-07 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in disturbing the trial judge's discretion to disallow certain audit expenses as taxable costs.
• E.H. Reise v. Bd. OF Regents OF the Univ. OF Wis. Sys.
  957 F.2d 293· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-12 ·cited 16×
  Orders compelling a mental examination are not immediately appealable as final decisions under the collateral order doctrine, and scheduling orders are not appealable interlocutory orders.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc.
  857 F.2d 600· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to explicitly consider less drastic alternatives before dismissing the case, as required by Malone v. United States Postal Service.
• Kropp v. Ziebarth
  557 F.2d 142· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders, as the record did not demonstrate willfulness or bad faith.
• Ilan-Gat Eng'rs, Ltd. v. Antigua Int'l Bank
  659 F.2d 234· D.C. Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 15×
  A court retains jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction and impose sanctions for discovery violations, even if an indispensable party's presence might later destroy diversity jurisdiction. The magistrate erred in dismissing the case and refusing to consider sanctions.
• Powers v. Chicago Transit Auth.
  846 F.2d 1139· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order holding a party in civil contempt for refusing to disclose information in discovery is not a final decision and thus not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• DiGREGORIO v. First Rediscount Corp.
  506 F.2d 781· 3d Cir.· 1974-12-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal with prejudice without a sufficient finding of willfulness, bad faith, or fault, as required by Rule 37(b)(2)(C) and Supreme Court precedent.
• Applewood Landscape & Nursery Co., Inc. v. Hollingsworth
  884 F.2d 1502· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the appeal frivolous and awarding double costs and attorney's fees to the appellees.
• Donovan v. Mosher Steel Co.
  791 F.2d 1535· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the 'four corners' rule, limiting review to the warrant affidavit, does not apply to OSHA administrative inspection warrants based on neutral selection plans.
• Branca v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co.
  773 F.2d 1158· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 11×
  The court held that an Argentine decree of presumptive death, while admissible as hearsay under an exception, is not prima facie evidence of death under Florida law, and a Florida probate decree has no collateral estoppel effect against a non-party insurer.
• R.W. Int'l Corp. & T. H. Ward de la Cruz, Inc. v. Welch Foods, Inc.
  937 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-21 ·cited 10×
  A dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) requires a prior court order compelling discovery that was subsequently violated; a general scheduling order or a party's prior discovery violations do not suffice as a basis for dismissal without a specific order.
• Taylor v. Medtronics, Inc.
  861 F.2d 980· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-22 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions for discovery violations and properly granted summary judgment due to the lack of expert testimony supporting the plaintiffs' claims.
• Eduard VON DER Heydt v. Kennedy
  299 F.2d 459· D.C. Cir.· 1962-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery orders, as the plaintiff's actions demonstrated bad faith and willful refusal to produce documents and answer interrogatories.
• John v. State OF La.
  899 F.2d 1441· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a magistrate had jurisdiction to recommend sanctions, the attorney had sufficient notice, the findings of noncompliance were not clearly erroneous, and the imposition of sanctions was not an abuse of discretion.
• Powers v. The Chicago Transit Auth.
  890 F.2d 1355· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-11 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit and the finding of contempt, but reduced the amount of accrued fines.
• Halverson v. Campbell Soup Co.
  374 F.2d 810· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the exclusion of a key witness's testimony was an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial for the plaintiff, and that the indemnity clause covered the indemnitee's negligence.
• Eartha Lorraine Bluitt v. Arco Chem. Co.
  777 F.2d 188· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-14 ·cited 6×
  A district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an employment discrimination case as a sanction for the plaintiff's and her counsel's willful and contumacious failure to comply with discovery orders.
• Coleman v. Sherwood Med. Indus.
  746 F.2d 445· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-15 ·cited 6×
  An order imposing costs and attorneys' fees as a sanction for failing to comply with a discovery order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order exception.
• United States v. Jonas Klimavicius
  847 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that entering a default judgment as a sanction for discovery non-compliance in a denaturalization proceeding constitutes an abuse of discretion due to the severe consequences of losing citizenship.
• John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Prods., Inc.
  845 F.2d 1172· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing WPP's antitrust claims and awarding attorney fees due to WPP's repeated failure to comply with discovery orders.
• Carey v. Klutznick
  653 F.2d 732· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court improvidently granted a discovery order compelling the Census Bureau to produce confidential documents and abused its discretion by imposing severe sanctions for non-compliance, necessitating a new trial.
• Hinson v. Mich. Mut. Liab. Co.
  275 F.2d 537· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant waived its right to seek dismissal by unilaterally rescheduling the plaintiff's physical examination, and the plaintiff's failure to appear was potentially excusable due to illness.
• Fisher v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  246 F.2d 344· 7th Cir.· 1957-06-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice was improper when the plaintiff had already sold the vehicle and the court order for tests was impossible to fulfill.
• Armstrong v. Cadle Co.
  192 F.R.D. 698· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff committed perjury or other misconduct that prevented the defendant from fully and fairly presenting its case.
• Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Governor Ron Desantis
  2024 WL 3512805· M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-18 ·cited 1×
  The court granted the application for final default judgment, finding the defendant liable under the Clean Water Act due to its failure to comply with court orders and secure counsel.
• Routeware, Inc. v. Carver
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-25
  The court recommended granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment and permanent injunction because the defendant willfully failed to defend the action and the plaintiff adequately alleged a breach of contract claim and grounds for injunctive relief.
• Cheley v. Vranicar
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-28
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, ordering the defendant to produce certain documents and answers, but denying sanctions.