Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03138/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03138-0/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. 05-3138

___________

Beatrice Hudson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Pinnacle Teleservices, * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Janice Cotton; Amer Morris; Steve *

Harrison; Travis Taylor; David Hovet, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: May 30, 2006

Filed: June 13, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-3138 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055615
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Celeste

F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

As a sanction for her conduct during discovery, the district court1

 assessed

attorney’s fees and costs against Beatrice Hudson and dismissed her employmentdiscrimination action with prejudice. We affirm.

We find no abuse of discretion in the award of attorney’s fees and costs to

appellee for Hudson’s failure to appear at February 1, 2005 depositions. Hudson had

subpoened the two witnesses for the depositions, had arranged for the court reporter,

and had asked the court to pay the requisite expenses; yet she neither appeared at the

depositions, nor notified any relevant parties that she would not be attending. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(g) (district court may order party who gave notice of deposition but

failed to attend to pay reasonable expenses incurred by other party in attending,

including reasonable attorney’s fees); Greenwood v. Dittmer, 776 F.2d 785, 790-91

(8th Cir. 1985) (reviewing Rule 30(g) awards for abuse of discretion). 

We also find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the action. After being

warned that she must provide complete Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)

disclosures relating to her damages or suffer dismissal, Hudson never thereafter

responded with additional information about her damages, and maintained at her

deposition that she had provided enough information about her damages. See

Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000) (under Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2), district court may dismiss action as sanction for failure to comply with

discovery orders if there is order compelling discovery, it is willfully violated, and

other party is prejudiced; reviewing Rule 37 sanctions for abuse of discretion). We

agree with the district court that Hudson’s actions prejudiced appellee’s ability to

prepare a summary judgment motion or for trial, see id. at 824 (plaintiff’s failure to

comply with discovery order regarding medical releases prejudiced defendant because

defendant spent time needed to complete discovery and prepare for trial on

Appellate Case: 05-3138 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055615
-3-

“hounding” plaintiff for releases), and that lesser sanctions would have proven futile

given Hudson’s deposition testimony that she would continue to withhold evidence

until trial, see Keefer v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 941 (8th

Cir. 2001) (district court does not have to impose least onerous sanction, but may

choose most appropriate sanction under circumstances). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3138 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055615