Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02818/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02818-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 09-2818

________________

Debora Craig,

Plaintiff,

Charles Andrew Harter,

Appellant,

v.

St. Anthony's Medical Center,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Eastern District of Missouri.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: June 14, 2010

 Filed: July 19, 2010

________________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Harter represented Debora Craig in an employment discrimination

claim against her former employer, St. Anthony's Medical Center. Counsel for the

parties arranged to depose Ms. Craig on February 27, 2009. Harter arrived late at the

agreed upon deposition location, and he initially refused to produce his client because

she was not subject to a subpoena. Once the deposition started, Harter continually

Appellate Case: 09-2818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684681
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

made argumentative and suggestive objections. He also engaged in private and offthe-record conversations with his client, answered multiple questions in place of his

client, and instructed his client to refuse to answer questions. Only once did Harter

assert a privilege to justify an off-the-record conversation or an instruction to his

client to refuse to answer.

After the deposition, defense counsel moved the district court1

 to sanction

Harter for his behavior at the deposition, as well as for other discovery-related

indiscretions. One day later, the district court addressed the motion for sanctions at

a previously scheduled hearing. Harter did not appear at the hearing. The district

court held that Harter had failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30

to such an extent that the deposition in question was unuseable, and the court granted

the motion for sanctions and ordered defense counsel to submit documentation of the

firm's fees and costs related to the deposition transgressions. Harter moved for

reconsideration of the sanctions because he was not given adequate notice of the

hearing. The district court held a hearing on the motion to reconsider and thereafter

held the motion in abeyance. When the parties subsequently settled the underlying

lawsuit, the court entered an order denying all pending motions without prejudice.

The following day, the district court entered a separate order directing Harter to show

cause why the court should not sanction him for his actions during discovery. Harter

filed a response to the show-cause order, and a hearing was held on the matter. At the

hearing, Harter argued that he was a pauper and that it would be unjust to sanction

him. The district court ordered Harter to pay $1,000 toward defense counsel's

$17,236.58 of fees and costs related to the discovery transgressions. Harter appeals

the sanction.

Appellate Case: 09-2818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684681
-3-

We review the imposition of discovery sanctions for an abuse of discretion. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 advisory committee's note (explaining Rule 30(d) sanctions are

congruent with Rule 26(g) sanctions in all ways but one); Johnson Int'l Co. v. Jackson

Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 431, 438-39 (8th Cir. 1994) (reviewing Rule 26(g)

sanctions for abuse of discretion); Perkins v. Gen. Motors Corp., 965 F.2d 597, 600-

02 (8th Cir.) (reviewing sanctions for violation of multiple discovery rules for abuse

of discretion), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1020 (1992). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

30(c)(2) governs the conduct of examinations by deposition: "An objection at the time

of the examination . . . must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds;

the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be stated concisely

in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner." Counsel may instruct a client

deponent not to answer only in certain narrowly defined circumstances, including

when necessary to preserve a privilege. Fed R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). The advisory

committee's comments explain that argumentative objections, suggestive objections,

and directions to a deponent not to answer often disrupt, unduly prolong, and unfairly

frustrate deposition testimony. The notes also explain that an excessive number of

unnecessary objections may constitute actionable conduct, though the objections be

not argumentative or suggestive. To deter such practices, Rule 30(d)(2) authorizes the

district court to "impose an appropriate sanction—including the reasonable expenses

and attorney's fees incurred by any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or

frustrates the fair examination of the deponent." 

Our review of the relevant deposition reveals a substantial number of

argumentative objections together with suggestive objections and directions to the

deponent to refrain from answering questions without asserting a valid justification

under Rule 30(c)(2). The record reflects ample support for the district court's finding

that Harter impeded, delayed, or frustrated the deposition. The $1,000 sanction was

not an abuse of discretion. Because the sanction was proper under Rule 30(d)(2), we

need not review the district court's alternative basis for the sanction under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Harter's motion to strike St. Anthony's Medical Center's

Appellate Case: 09-2818 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684681
-4-

January 11, 2010, letter to this court fails to provide legal authority relative to the

procedural propriety of such a letter (as opposed to arguments assailing the letter's

contents) and is hereby denied.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed.

_____________________

Appellate Case: 09-2818 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/19/2010 Entry ID: 3684681