Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60363/USCOURTS-ca5-19-60363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60363

Summary Calendar

TOMMY O'BRYANT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

WALGREEN COMPANY; CBRE GROUP, INCORPORATED; JOHN OR 

JANE DOES 1-10, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:18-CV-8

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Tommy O’Bryant (“O’Bryant”) sued Appellees Walgreen Co.

(“Walgreens”) and CBRE Group, Inc. (“CBRE”) for gross negligence for injuries 

sustained, including the amputation of his left leg, when an errant third-party 

driver pulled into a nose-in parking space in front of where O’Bryant stood, 

caused his truck to lurch over the curb, and pinned O’Bryant to the exterior 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

2

wall of the store. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the 

district court granted the appellees’s summary judgment motion and denied

O’Bryant’s summary judgment motion. For the reasons set forth herein, we 

AFFIRM the district court’s decision. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Facts

On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff-Appellant Tommy O’Bryant, an 

Alabama resident, was a patron of the 2405 Pass Road Biloxi, Mississippi 

Walgreens store to have a prescription filled. At some point, O’Bryant went 

outside to smoke a cigarette and talk with his wife’s cousin on the sidewalk 

abutting the east side of the store. A Dodge Ram truck, operated by Edward 

Kersh, pulled into a parking space in front of where O’Bryant stood. Kersh’s 

foot slipped off of the brake pedal and onto the accelerator, causing his truck 

to jump the curb onto the sidewalk and into O’Bryant. O’Bryant was pinned 

against the brick wall of the store; the truck lurched with enough force to 

damage the wall. O’Bryant suffered significant injuries, including the 

amputation of his left leg. 

B. Procedural History

O’Bryant narrowly beat the three-year statute of limitations period when 

he filed his suit against Defendants-Appellees Walgreens and CBRE on 

January 4, 2018. In doing so, O’Bryant alleged Walgreens’s negligence in 

failing to erect bollards and other safety barriers to prevent Mr. Kersh’s car 

from jumping the curb and causing his injuries. Walgreens owns the store and 

parking lot where the incident occurred while CBRE is the company separately 

contracted by Walgreen Co. to repair and maintain Walgreen’s store premises 

nationwide. All parties filed motions for summary judgment. Walgreens moved 

for summary judgment arguing that it owed no duty under Mississippi law to 

protect O’Bryant from negligent drivers and that the store and parking lot 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

3

were reasonably safe. O’Bryant opposed Walgreens’s motion for summary 

judgment arguing that prior incidents at other stores made the instant 

accident foreseeable, giving rise to Walgreens’s duty to O’Bryant. CBRE also 

moved for summary judgment arguing that it owed no duty to O’Bryant as it 

did not own, operate, manage, or control the Biloxi Walgreen Co. store where 

he was injured. O’Bryant also moved for partial summary judgment against 

the appellees, asserting the same arguments in opposition to Walgreens’ 

motion, in addition to CBRE Group’s knowledge of a dangerous condition. In 

the alternative, O’Bryant asked the court to strike the appellees’ answer and 

enter a default judgment against them as a sanction for alleged discovery 

abuses. The district court granted the appellees’ motions for summary 

judgment, though declining to rule on O’Bryant’s motion to strike, finding that 

neither Walgreens nor CBRE owed O’Bryant a duty of care under Mississippi’s 

premises liability law. Particularly, the court found that the exception to 

Mississippi’s law created by Cheeks v. AutoZone, Inc., 154 So. 3d 817 (Miss. 

2014) was inapplicable because it found that the Biloxi Walgreens location took 

no steps to assume a duty of care to invitees by “(1) creating a situation that 

makes injury to a patron on the premises by a vehicle reasonably foreseeable 

and (2) undertaking extra measures to protect patrons entering or exiting the 

store.” In granting the appellees’ motions for summary judgment and denying 

O’Bryant’s partial motion for summary judgment, the district court also elected 

to dismiss all of O’Bryant’s claims with prejudice. O’Bryant timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A grant of summary judgment, and any interpretations of state law 

therein, are reviewed de novo. McGruder v. Will, 204 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 

2000). The court must look beyond the pleadings and accept evidence favorable 

to the non-movant as true to determine if there is a genuine issue of material 

fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Renwick v. PNK Lake Charles, L.L.C., 901 F.3d 605, 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

4

611 (5th Cir. 2018). “A ‘material’ fact is one ‘that might affect the outcome of 

the suit under governing law,’ and a fact issue is ‘“genuine” if the evidence is 

such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.’” 

Renwick, 901 F.3d at 611 (internal citations omitted). This court may affirm 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment for any reason supported by 

the record. McGruder, 204 F.3d at 222.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Neither Walgreens nor CBRE owed O’Bryant a duty of care

While the parties are completely diverse, they agree that Mississippi law 

governs this action. Additionally, neither party argues that summary 

judgment was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact. 

O’Bryant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment 

in favor of the appellees because the evidence was sufficient to show that 

Walgreens created a hazard by failing to erect bollards between the nose-in 

parking and the sidewalk. In his view, this brings his injuries within the realm 

of foreseeability and, in turn, trigger Walgreens’s and CBRE’s duty owed to 

him. We disagree. 

To prevail in a premises liability action, the plaintiff must show: (1) he 

was owed a duty by the defendant; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) 

the plaintiff suffered damages; and (4) the breach was the proximate cause for 

the damages sustained. See Galanis v. CMA Mgmt. Co., 175 So. 3d 1213, 1216 

(Miss. 2015). When analyzing duty and breach, Mississippi courts conduct a 

three-step analysis: determine (1) the status of the plaintiff as either an 

invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser; (2) what level of duty is owed to the injured 

plaintiff; and (3) whether the landowner breached that duty. See Cheeks v. 

AutoZone, Inc., 154 So. 3d 817, 822 (Miss. 2014). A plaintiff is an invitee if he 

enters the premises of another according “to the express or implied invitation 

of the owner or occupant for their mutual advantage.” Id. Both parties agree 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

5

that O’Bryant is an invitee. The next question for us to decide is what duty, if 

any, was owed to O’Bryant as a patron of the Biloxi Walgreens. 

While the landowner cannot insure the invitee’s safety, the landowner 

“does owe an invitee the duty to keep the premises reasonably safe, and when 

not reasonably safe, to warn only where there is hidden danger or peril that is 

not in plain and open view.” Id. As with any negligence action, the complainedof action, or lack thereof, hinges on whether it falls within the realm of 

foreseeability. Id. at 823. With respect to the actions of third parties, 

“foreseeability is measured by all of the circumstances including the nature, 

condition and location of the defendant’s premises and defendant’s prior 

experience, bearing in mind that what is required to be foreseeable is the 

general nature of the event or harm, not its precise manner or occurrence.” Id.

(quoting Crain v. Cleveland Lodge 1532, Order of Moose, Inc., 641 So.2d 1186, 

1190 (Miss. 1994)). 

Mississippi law is unequivocally clear that a store owner owes no duty to 

a store patron to erect barriers in order to prevent vehicles from driving into 

the store. See Id. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Mississippi has stated 

that,

it cannot be contended with any degree of reason or logic that the 

owner of a store, . . . by failing to erect an impregnable barrier 

between the entrance of his store and an adjacent area where 

motor vehicles are driven and parked, should have anticipated 

that automobiles will be negligently propelled over the curb and 

across the sidewalk into the entrance of his store . . . . If as a matter 

of law such occurrences are . . . to be guarded against, there would 

be no limitation on the duty owed by the owners of establishments 

into which people are invited to enter.

Id. Simply stated, “a premises owner has no duty to protect against runaway 

vehicles where such incidents would be unforeseeable.” Id. at 824. But, where 

the landowner creates a hazardous condition and undertakes additional 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

6

measures to protect patrons entering or exiting the store, Mississippi law 

acknowledges that a landowner will have assumed the duty of protecting 

patrons from negligently driven vehicles. See Buffalo Servs., Inc. v. Smith, 227 

So. 3d 1096, 1097–98 (Miss. 2017).

Now we must decide whether Walgreens assumed a duty to protect 

patrons from the errant driving of third parties. O’Bryant argues that evidence 

showing that Walgreens placed amenities such as a trashcan with an ashtray, 

a Redbox machine, and Blue Rhino stations at various points on the sidewalk 

around the immediate perimeter of the store suggest that Walgreens created a 

condition that invite patrons to linger on the sidewalk, thereby exposing them 

to the possibility of an errant driver accidentally lurching over the curb. He 

also argues that Walgreens’s testimony that the purpose of the six-inch curb 

was to protect patrons on the sidewalk is sufficient to prove that Walgreens 

took additional steps to protect patrons from the errant driving of third parties.

Finally, he presented evidence to the district court that the Biloxi Walgreens 

experienced a similar accident on July 7, 2014 when a vehicle hopped the curb 

and crashed into the building which substantiates Walgreens’s knowledge of a 

dangerous condition. 

Even when construing these facts in O’Bryant’s favor, the circumstances 

in this present case are clearly distinguishable from those in other cases. In

Cheeks, AutoZone stated that the bollards in that case were erected “as a 

‘safety measure’ designed to protect pedestrians.” Cheeks, 154 So. 3d at 824. 

Additionally, Cheeks testified that he relied on the bollards for safety and 

“instinctively tried to run behind a bollard, because he assumed they were 

there for protection.” Id. But, the bollards in Cheeks did not fully block the 

entrance, an area that each customer had to traverse in order to enter and exit 

the store. Id. Notwithstanding that no bollards were erected at all at the Biloxi 

Walgreens, this accident occurred on the side of the store, immediately 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

7

adjacent to the entrance. The district court likened the inadequate bollards in 

Cheeks to a defective sidewalk curb, such as one that is sloped or broken up so 

as to not be functional to stop a driver should he or she hit it. We agree with 

this assessment. O’Bryant did not argue at the district court, nor in his 

principal brief to this court, that the curb was defective as to this purpose. He 

merely calls the curb, in and of itself, inadequate without elaboration. 

Furthermore, despite Walgreens’s testimony that the curb was a safety 

measure and the presence of the amenities provided on the sidewalks trimming 

the perimeter of the store, O’Bryant did not provide evidence to support the 

notion that Walgreens can guarantee that patrons would utilize these 

amenities, thereby creating a hazard and exposing patrons to a possible 

danger. 

In Buffalo Services, Smith’s argument in that case is essentially the 

same argument that O’Bryant asserts now: the storeowner has breached its 

duty to make the premises reasonably safe for invitees by failing to erect 

vertical bollards, parking stops, or other physical barriers “in order to prevent 

the encroachment or obstruction of pedestrian ways by cars.” Buffalo Servs., 

227 So. 3d at 1097. But, as the Supreme Court of Mississippi held there, a 

plaintiff “cannot rely on the lack of bollards, parking stops, or other physical 

barriers in front [of the store] as evidence of negligence . . . .” because by 

default, the store owner is under no obligation to do so. Id. at 1098. 

O’Bryant also argues that the district court erroneously relied on the 

“open and obvious” doctrine when it declared that “[the] curb is not a hidden 

condition, let alone a dangerous one,” that “[a] curb provides no false illusion 

of safety,” and that “it is patently obvious that a vehicle could drive over it.” 

O’Bryant v. Walgreen Co., 387 F. Supp. 3d 693, 702 (S.D. Miss. 2019) (emphasis 

in original). This argument fails for the same reason that O’Bryant says that 

the district court erred: the doctrine was expressly abolished by the Supreme 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

8

Court of Mississippi in Tharp v. Bunge Corp., 641 So. 2d 20 (Miss. 1994). 

Neither Walgreens nor CBRE asserted that doctrine as a defense. Moreover, 

the court’s statements were not a finding that O’Bryant knew and appreciated 

that the curb was dangerous. In our view, the court was simply stating that

the curb in and of itself is not a hidden danger or peril that triggered 

Walgreens’s duty to warn patrons that its sidewalks are not reasonably safe. 

Additionally, it appears to us that the district court was merely highlighting 

that the curb is not the type of hazard that could be construed as a premises 

owner undertaking extra steps to protect patrons entering or exiting its store. 

Perhaps the largest area of tension between this case and the other cases 

that precede it is that the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs in those cases

occurred when the plaintiffs were inside the store, not outside. In turn, the 

likely reason why Mississippi courts could consistently find no liability on the 

part of the store is because, even without physical barriers such as bollards

and parking stops, there is a clear bifurcation between the parking lot and the 

walled exterior of the store. In this case, O’Bryant was standing outside 

smoking a cigarette. He had no reasonable expectation that he was in danger 

or that he could have been exposed to a danger. However, in the same way, the 

Biloxi Walgreens did not anticipate that possibility either. See Corley, 835 So. 

2d at 37–38 (explaining that the store owner must have “cause to anticipate” 

the wrongful or negligent act of a third party on his premises). Even with the 

prior accident that occurred at that particular store in July 2014, no patrons

were injured. So, when construing the facts in the light most favorable to the 

appellees with respect to O’Bryant’s cross motion for summary judgment, it is

reasonable to infer that Walgreens did not need to erect such barriers when 

the driver in the July 7, 2014 incident admitted that “she was pulling into the 

space real slow and when she went to hit the brake to stop she hit the gas and 

her vehicle lunged forward and penetrated the building.” What happened there 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

9

is closely akin to what happened here except, this time, a person was injured 

who just so happened to be O’Bryant. Walgreens had no prior indication that 

such an incident would happen. Again, under Mississippi law, the absence of 

physical barriers cannot impute liability to the store for any injuries caused by 

the errant driving of a third party. 

In sum, we conclude that the appellees did not assume the duty of 

protecting its patrons from the errant driving of third parties. Accordingly,

summary judgment in favor of Walgreens and CBRE was proper. 

B. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded 

evidence of prior accidents at other Walgreens locations nationwide

A district court’s exclusion of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 

2009). A court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous 

view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Id. If we find 

that there was an abuse of discretion, the harmless error doctrine will preclude 

reversal except where the error affects the substantial rights of the 

complaining party. Nunez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 604 F.3d 840, 844 (5th Cir. 2000).

O’Bryant argues that the district court erroneously excluded evidence of 

similar incidents that establish notice of a dangerous condition and 

foreseeability of harm. He sought to admit evidence of similar accidents that 

occurred throughout the country, from at-least 83 different Walgreens 

locations between 2011-2018. In turn, he argues that the district court 

misapplied Mississippi law that allows the introduction of evidence of similar 

incidents to prove notice of a dangerous condition. 

However, O’Bryant misreads Mississippi law and broadens its scope in 

doing so. Mississippi law does allow for the admittance of evidence of similar 

incidents but, at the same location as the site in question. See Double Quick, 

Inc. v. Moore, 73 So. 3d 1162, 1166-67 (Miss. 2011); see also Corley v. Evans, 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

10

835 So. 2d 30, 37–38 (Miss. 2003); Yoste v. Wal-Mart Stores, 822 So. 2d 935, 

936 (Miss. 2002). O’Bryant sought to admit evidence of storefront crashes from 

different Walgreens stores throughout the country. Indeed, O’Bryant cited to 

cases from a number of foreign jurisdictions such as Connecticut, Arizona, 

Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, and others, that are more permissive in the 

evidence they choose to admit. To be sure, it is the prerogative of those foreign 

jurisdictions to be so permissive as it is as much Mississippi’s prerogative to be 

more restrictive. As the district court properly noted, those jurisdictions have 

no bearing on the application of Mississippi premises liability law and the 

interpretation thereof. O’Bryant, 387 F. Supp. 3d at 701. 

In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to 

admit O’Bryant’s proffer of evidence of Walgreens storefront crashes from 

around the country. 

C. The district did not abuse its discretion when it denied O’Bryant’s 

motion to strike the appellees’ answer for alleged discovery abuses

A district court’s discovery rulings, including whether to administer 

discovery sanctions, are also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Moore v. 

CITGO Ref. & Chemicals Co., L.P., 735 F.3d 309, 315 (5th Cir. 2013).

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) authorizes sanctions for failure to 

comply with discovery orders.” Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763 

(1980). “The Rule . . . permits the trial court to strike claims from the pleadings, 

and even to ‘dismiss the action ... or render a judgment by default against the 

disobedient party.’” See Id. (quoting Nat’l Hockey League v. Metropolitan 

Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976) (per curiam)). Such remedies are considered 

to be severe and require a finding of bad faith or willful misconduct. See Smith 

Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 684 F.3d 486, 488 (5th Cir. 2012).

“Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently both ‘to penalize those whose 

conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, [and] to deter those who 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

11

might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.’” Roadway 

Exp., Inc., 447 U.S. at 763–64 (quoting Nat’l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 643). 

A party may, however, resist discovery. The “party resisting discovery 

must show specifically how . . . each interrogatory is not relevant or how each 

question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive.” McLeod, Alexander, 

Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal 

quotations omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

The record shows that O’Bryant moved the district court for Rule 37(b) 

discovery sanctions against Walgreens on February 5, 2019, a month before its 

March 4, 2019 “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, 

Motion to Strike for Discovery Abuses Against Walgreen Co.” In that first 

motion for 37(b) discovery sanctions, O’Bryant laid out three options of relief 

he deemed sufficient, in order of most to least preferred. The “preferred option” 

was for the court to order Walgreens “to produce the responsive documents at 

its own costs within five days and allow the plaintiff to retake the 30(b)(6) 

deposition” regarding Walgreens’s knowledge of the frequency of storefront 

crashes. This preferred option closely mirrors, if not being the exact same as, 

the complained of Walgreens action and requested court ordered remedy that 

O’Bryant set forth in his “Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of 

Walgreen Co.” In the motion for 37(b) discovery sanctions, one of the other two 

lesser preferred alternative options was for the court to “[s]trike Walgreens’ 

responsive pleadings and enter a default judgment against it for liability for 

both negligence and gross negligence, as well as a judgment for economic 

damages, and have a trial on non-economic damages and punitive damages.” 

This second-choice option resurfaced in O’Bryant’s motion for summary 

judgment as an alternative remedy which he claims that the district court 

improperly denied.

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

12

O’Bryant argues that the district court erred in not striking Walgreens’s

responsive pleadings and entering default judgment against it. However, there 

is a stark procedural difference between the February 5 motion for 37(b) 

sanctions and the later motion for partial summary judgment which, in the 

alternative, was a motion to strike Walgreens’s pleadings for discovery abuses: 

the initial motion for 37(b) sanctions was properly filed during the course of 

discovery and handled by the magistrate judge. The motion for partial 

summary judgment alternatively seeking the most severe discovery sanctions 

against Walgreens was filed directly in the district court 24 days after the 

magistrate judge issued his ruling on the various motions that were before the 

court. 

In that February 8, 2019 order, the magistrate judge ruled on five 

motions, four filed by O’Bryant and one filed by Walgreens: (1) O’Bryant’s 

Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Walgreens; (2) O’Bryant’s Second

Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from CBRE; (3) Walgreens’s Motion 

for Clarification; (4) O’Bryant’s Motion for Rule 37(b) Sanctions; and (5) 

O’Bryant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal. He granted 

the two motions to compel which required (1) Walgreens to cooperate with 

O’Bryant to schedule the 30(b)(6) deposition related to Walgreens’s knowledge 

of storefront crashes at its stores; and (2) CBRE to provide the requested 

information related to storefront crashes within fourteen days from the date of 

the order. 

Additionally, the magistrate judge declared O’Bryant’s motion for 37(b) 

discovery sanctions and the motion for filing exhibits under seal as moot 

because O’Bryant voluntarily withdrew that motion. Walgreens contends that 

the district court did not err by declining to strike its pleadings and enter 

default judgment because the district court did not have jurisdiction to do so. 

Indeed, the procedure for handling discovery motions in this case was for 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

13

discovery motions to be heard before a magistrate judge and then the party 

dissatisfied with the ruling can appeal it to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A); see also Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th 

Cir. 1989) (“[Appellant] did not appeal the magistrate’s denial of his motion to 

the trial court, thus we are without jurisdiction to consider it.”). But, here there 

was nothing for O’Bryant to appeal because he voluntarily withdrew the 

motion for 37(b) sanctions. The magistrate judge declared it moot only to 

underscore the fact that while the motion was filed and pending before the 

court, that requested relief no longer remained before the court to adjudicate. 

In turn, O’Bryant had enough time to file the motion that renewed his request 

for discovery sanctions before the period of discovery lapsed. The initial motion 

for 37(b) sanctions was not dismissed with prejudice that would have precluded 

the filing of a second motion renewing those requests for sanctions. What’s 

more, the district court granted O’Bryant’s preferred relief even though it did 

not substantively rule on the 37(b) discovery sanctions motion. Accordingly,

there is no abuse of discretion. 

Assuming arguendo that the district court did have jurisdiction to 

consider that motion with respect to the request of striking Walgreens’s 

pleadings and entering default judgment against Walgreens, the court would 

have had to find that Walgreens acted in bad faith in order to justify imposing 

those drastic sanctions. See EEOC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 999 F.2d 113, 117-

19 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Frame v. S-H, Inc., 967 F.2d 194, 203 (5th Cir. 1992) 

(“[S]triking pleadings . . . is a draconian remedy of last resort.”). O’Bryant 

argues that the district court erred for several reasons such as Walgreens’s 

“refus[al] to designate a corporate representative to testify on certain topics in 

willful contempt of the District Court’s Order,” and the delayed production of 

documents which O’Bryant characterizes as “deliberate obfuscation” and 

“contumacious.” But, in ruling on several motions to compel filed by O’Bryant, 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/28/2020
No. 19-60363

14

the magistrate judge never found Walgreens or CBRE to have acted in bad 

faith or with willful disregard for the court’s orders. Again, for the reasons 

already stated, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when 

it declined to issue sanctions against the appellees.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons aforementioned, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of Walgreen Co. & CBRE Group. 

Case: 19-60363 Document: 00515326015 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/28/2020