Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-02215/USCOURTS-ca10-94-02215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linda Sue Archibeque
Appellant
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

Office of the Clerk 

Byron White United states courthouse 

1823 Stout Street 

Denver, co 80257 

Patrick Fisher 

Clerk 

Elisabeth Shumaker 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

December 12, 1995 

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

RE: 94-2215, Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka and Sante Fe 

Railway Company 

Please be advised that the 

contains an incorrect file date of 

correct date is November 24, 1995. 

correction to your copy. 

captioned decision 

November 25, 1995. 

Please make this 

Very truly yours, 

Patrick Fisher, 

Clerk 

The 

Barbara Schermerhorn 

Deputy Clerk 

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 1 
PUBLISH . FILED . UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Untted States Court of Appca:S Te:-~th Circuit 

LINDA SUE ARCHIBEQUE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND 

SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT NOV 2 5 1995 

94-2215 PATRICK FISHER 

Clerlc 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

On Appeal From The 

United States District Court 

For The District Of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CIV 93-862 LH) 

Michael B. Michelson, of Gaines & Stern Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, 

Ohio (Michael J. Rogan, of Gaines & stern co., L.P.A., Cleveland, 

Ohio, and Mark Riley, of Padilla, Riley & Shane P.A., Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Johns. Thal (J. H. Mahaney, with him on the brief), of Atkinson & 

Thal, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before KELLY and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge*. 

SETH, circuit Judge. 

*The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, United States Senior District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 2 
Appellant Linda Sue Archibeque appeals the dismissal with 

prejudice of her complaint against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 

Railway Company (AT&SF) . The dismissal was based on the district 

court's determination that Appellant willfully provided false and 

misleading answers on a continual basis during the discovery 

process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). 

Appellant brought her complaint under the Federal Employees 

Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, seeking damages for personal 

injuries allegedly sustained while working for AT&SF. 

Specifically, she maintains that she suffered a herniated disk in 

her lower back as a result of a December 29, 1990 unwitnessed 

work-related accident. 

In its answer to Appellant's complaint, AT&SF asserts that 

the injury predated December 1990, or that it was a result of an 

accident suffered subsequent to the alleged December 1990 mishap. 

Because Appellant had suffered other injuries, including 

automobile accidents in July 1990 and July 1992, AT&SF requested a 

complete set of medical records by which its experts could 

evaluate Appellant's claim and plan a defense. AT&SF also raised 

the question as to the number of accidents in which Appellant had 

been involved. This was on October 8, 1993 during a conference 

before the magistrate judge. 

In response to AT&SF's request for complete medical records 

and a complete list of health care providers that had treated 

Appellant in the past, Appellant listed a variety of providers and 

a corresponding list of the medical conditions. In her responses, 

there was no mention of any lower back or tailbone symptoms in 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 3 
existence prior to December 1990. In fact, when asked what other 

serious physical injuries she had experienced since 1975, 

Appellant listed the alleged December 1990 accident, the car 

accidents mentioned above, and a bicycle accident in 1987. There 

was no reference to lower back or tailbone injuries prior to 1990. 

Appellant signed a sworn verification as to the truth of her 

answers, and signed a statement that the medical records provided 

were complete. In addition, Appellant stated that she had not had 

her lower back X-rayed prior to the December 1990 injury. 

Finally, Appellant stated in her deposition that she had no 

recollection of lower back pain prior to the December 1990 

accident. 

Subsequent to the responses and deposition testimony provided 

by Appellant, AT&SF sought to independently confirm the veracity 

of the responses. Through this effort, AT&SF was able to 

determine that for over ten years prior to the alleged 

December 1990 accident Appellant had sought and received medical 

treatment for lower back and tailbone pain. Specifically, the 

documents uncovered by AT&SF indicate that on over fifteen 

occasions, involving at least six physicians, Appellant sought 

treatment for a variety of lower back ailments and related 

symptoms. 

The records uncovered by AT&SF indicate that from 1980 to 

1984, Appellant complained to Dr. Farid Sada of constant pain in 

the lower back area, "numbness & tingling [in the] right hip," and 

pain in the left hip and tailbone leaving her hardly able to sit. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 4 
Aplt. App. at 63-64. On April 24, 1984 X-rays were taken of 

Appellant's hips and lower back. 

In 1984 Appellant also visited Lovelace Medical Center on 

several occasions complaining of constant pain in her tailbone 

that would shoot into her thigh and into her buttocks. More 

X-rays were taken and she saw several physicians within Lovelace's 

orthopedic department. Id. at 66-71. In a 1986 visit to Caremore 

Chiropractic Center Appellant indicated that she had experienced 

lower back pain for five or six years prior to the visit. Id. at 

74. In 1989, Appellant again indicated in her medical claim to a 

separate physician a history of lower back and tailbone pain. 

Indeed, Appellant sought medical treatment for lower back pain 

through July of 1990. Id. at 84-86. 

Following its discoveries, AT&SF brought its Motion to 

Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d), asserting that 

Appellant attempted to conceal her medical history, repeatedly 

perjured herself, and thus failed to cooperate in the discovery 

process. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in opposition to the 

motion, stating that her problems were with her tailbone rather 

than her lower back and that her failure to disclose her past 

medical history was merely oversight. She did not file amended 

interrogatory responses or an affidavit regarding her compliance 

with the discovery process. She has at no time, even in her 

arguments to this court on appeal, explained her conduct. 

Instead, she concludes in her brief to this court that she "fully 

cooperated in the discovery process." 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 5 
The district court granted AT&SF's motion, finding that 

Appellant's failure "to disclose her numerous complaints and 

treatments involving her lower back and tailbone . . . [could not] 

reasonably be classified as 'mere oversight.'" The court further 

found that Appellant's actions "irreparably prejudiced [AT&SF] in 

the preparation of its defense." Finally, the court noted that 

Appellant's conduct "seriously interfered with the judicial 

process." 

The imposition of the sanction of dismissal is reviewed under 

an abuse of discretion standard. National Hockey League v. 

Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639; Mobley v. McCormick, 

40 F.3d 337 (lOth Cir.). Our case law makes it clear that a 

district judge may dismiss an action for discovery violations. 

Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (lOth Cir.). See also 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (2) (C) (authorizing a court to enter an order 

dismissing the action if a party "fails to obey an order to 

provide or permit discovery"). Because of the harshness of 

dismissal, however, due process requires that the discovery 

violation be predicated upon "willfulness, .bad faith, or [some] 

fault of petitioner" rather than inability to comply. National 

Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 640 (quoting Societe Internationale v. 

Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212). See also Toma v. City of Weatherford, 

846 F.2d 58 (lOth Cir.) (willfulness not shown by delay in 

answering interrogatories where defense counsel knew that 

plaintiff had moved from the jurisdiction and discovery would take 

longer than initially anticipated) . This circuit has provided a 

framework of factors that should ordinarily be considered by a 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 6 
trial court prior to dismissal. See Mobley, 40 F.3d at 340; 

Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 921. We have, however, recognized that 

these factors are not a "rigid test," and that determining the 

correct sanction is a fact specific inquiry that the district 

court is in the best position to make. Ehrenhaus, 965 F.2d at 

920-21. 

The factors mentioned above relevant to this inquiry include 

11 (1) the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the 

amount of interference with the judicial process; (3) the 

culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned the 

party in advance that dismissal of the action would be a likely 

sanction for non-compliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser 

sanctions." Id. at 921 (citations omitted). These factors are 

ordinarily evaluated on the record. Id. 

The district court in the instant case noted the degree of 

prejudice suffered by AT&SF and the impact Appellant's actions had 

with regard to AT&SF's ability to prepare for trial. The court 

noted the culpability of Appellant which we described above, 

specifically addressing the failure to disclose, the false 

statements, and the court's determination as to the credibility of 

Appellant's statements that her failures were mere oversight. The 

court found that Appellant's willful conduct seriously interfered 

with the judicial process, and expressly stated that it had 

considered lesser sanctions and determined that they were not 

appropriate. 

We conclude that the district court's order of dismissal did 

not constitute an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of 

-6-

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 7 
this case. The fact that Appellant was not warned of the imminent 

dismissal, or that the court did not evaluate the above factors on 

the record does not undermine the court's consideration of the 

remaining factors discussed above. As the Ehrenhaus court noted, 

"[a] district court should ordinarily consider and address all of 

the above factors before imposing dismissal as a sanction. 

However, often some of these factors will take on more importance 

that others." Id. at 922. Here, the egregious nature of 

Appellant's conduct, the effect on AT&SF and the interference with 

the judicial process properly led to the dismissal. The court 

made clear the reasons for its dismissal of the action in its 

Order, and its decision is fully supported by the record. We 

cannot find that the district court abused its discretion. 

Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM the dismissal of 

Appellant's claim. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 94-2215 Document: 01019279147 Date Filed: 11/24/1995 Page: 8