FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 85 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cv -0 01 04 -WCO SARA CASTLE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff , ve rs us APPALACHIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGE , JASPER GEORGIA, Inth ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s, DR. MARTHA MARQUARDT, Deanof He al th Serv ic es , inth ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , JOAN THOMPSON, Vic e Pre si de nt , inth ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , DR. TRINA BOTELER, Execu ti ve Affai rs Offic er, in th ei r in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es , JAM ES A. SATCHER, JR., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll In te res te d P arty -Ap pe ll an t.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 6, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ja m es A. Satc he r, a Geo rg iaatt orne y , cha ll en ge s s an ct io ns im po se d a ga in st hi m forhi s co nduc t as co un se l fo r SaraCas tl e inhe r la wsu itag ai ns t s ev eral adm in is tra to rs fro m

App al ach ia n Tec hn ic al Co ll eg e (“ ATC”), al le gi ng th atsh e
was im pr op erl y su sp en de d fr om

th e co ll eg e’s nu rs in g p ro gr am . On ap pe al , Sat ch er ar gu es th atth e co urt erredby awardi ng san ct io ns forth e fi li ng of a fri vo lo us m ot io n t o c om

pe l b ecau se he withd rew i t wi th inth e 2 1- da y saf e-h arb or pe rio d p ro vi de d b y

Fed .R.Ci v.P . 11 , bu t h e d idno t p res en t thi s ar gu m en t t o t he di st ric t co urt. Sat ch er al so arg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t t im e, th atsan ct io ns were n ot ap pr op ria te forin it ia ll y

pro vi di ng in co rrec t re sp on se s t o re qu es ts foradm is si on s be cau se th e in fo rm at io n s ou gh t was no t o f subs ta nt ia l i m po rta nc e. Last ly, Sat ch er arg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n fo r im po si ng san ct io ns for

hi s fai lu re t o c om

pl y with t he co urt’s l oc al rul es an d o rd er re ga rd in g t he pre pa rat io n
an d fi li ng of apre tri al ord er.

2Gen eral ly, we rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to awardsan ct io ns foran

ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Bak er v. Ald erman , 15 8 F .3d51 6, 5 21 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (Ru le 11 ); Ca rl uc civ. Pip er Air cr af t Co rp ., Inc
. , 77 5 F .2d14 40 , 14 47 (11 th Cir
. 19 85 ) (Ru le 37 ) (h ol di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs m us t b e “ fu ll y

supp orte d by the reco rd ”). Whe n apa rty fail s t o ra is e anarg um en t o r is su e b el ow, h owe ve r, we ge ne ral ly deem

th e is su e to be waiv ed
. Se e Fou r Sea so ns Hot el s & Reso rt

s, B.V. v. Con so rc io Bar r, S.A. , 37 7 F .3d11 64 , 11 68 -6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4)
. Add it io na ll y , a pa rty aban do ns anis su e b y no t p res en ti ng iton ap pe al
. Acces s No w, In c. v. So uthw es t Ai rl in es Co

. , 38 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Mo reo ve r, we can affi rm “ on an y gro un d tha t fi nd s s up po rt i n the reco rd .” Lu ca s v. Gra in ge r, In c. , 25 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e g iv e “ gr eatde fere nc e to a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f it s l oc al
ru le s” an d we wi ll no t “ se co nd -g ue ss ” th e d is tri ctco urt o n s uc h g ro un ds
. Clark v. Hou s. Au th . of

Alma , 97 1 F .2d72 3, 7 27 -2 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) ; se e a ls o L in k v. W ab as h R.R. Co

. , 37 0 U.S. 6 26 , 82 S.Ct . 13 86 , 13 89 , 8 L.Ed.2 d 7 34 (19 62 ) (n ot in g t ha t d is tri ctco urts ha ve “ ‘inh eren t p owe r’ notgo ve rn edby rule or s ta tu te bu t b y th e co nt ro l n eces sa ril y

ve st edin co urts to m an ag e th ei r own affa irs so as t o ach ie ve th e o rd erl y

an d e xp ed it io us di sp os it io n o f cas es ”). The di stric t co urt’s l oc al rul es pro vi de :

3The pa rti es sh al l p rep are andsi gn , inli euof t he Fed .R.Ci v.P . 26 (a)( 3)

di sc lo su res , a pr op os edco ns ol id at edpre tri al ord er t o b e fi le d wi th th e cl erkno lat er tha n t hi rty (30 ) da y s af te r th e cl os e o f di sc ov ery, or en try of the co urt’s ru li ng on an y pe nd in g m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t, wh ic he ve r is lat er. It s ha ll be th e re sp on si bi li tyof pl ai nt if f’s co un se l t o c on ta ct

de fe ns e co un se l t o a rr an ge a d at e fo r th e co nf er en ce. If th ere a re i ss ue s o n wh ic h c ou ns el forth e p art ie s can no t ag ree, t he area s o f di sa gr eem en t m us t b e sh own in th e pr op os edpre tri al ord er. N.D.Ga.L.R. 16.4 (A) (em ph as is ad de d) . Add it io na ll y , th e fai lu re t o c om pl y with th e co urt’s p retria l i ns tru ct io ns m ay res ul t i n t he im

po si ti on of s an ct io ns , in cl ud in g di sm is sa l o f th e cas e o r en try of a d efau ltjud gm en t. N.D.Ga.L.R. 16 .5. Mo reo ve r,
un de r th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e, “ th e co urt m ay is su e an y jus t o rd ers . . . if a p arty

or i ts att orne y

. . . is subs ta nt ia ll y

unpr ep aredto pa rti ci pa te . . . in th e pr etria l co nf

eren ce; or [ ] fai ls to ob ey a sc he du li ng ord er o r ot he r pr etria l o rd er. ap pe ar ata sc he du li ng or o th er p retria l co nf eren ce.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 16 (f)(1 )(B) , (C). An d u nd er Fe d. R. C iv . P.16 (f)(2 ), “ [i]ns te adof o r in ad di ti on to an y ot he r
sa nc ti on , th e co urt m

us t o rd er the pa rty, its att orne y , or b oth t o p ay th e rea so nabl e
ex pe ns es -in cl ud in g a tt orne y ’s fees -in curredbe cau se of a ny no nc om pl ia nc e wit h [Ru le 16 ]. ” The reco rdhe re s ho ws tha t Sa tc he r was ul ti m at el y san ct io ne d fo r: ( i) f

il in g a fri vo lo us m ot io n t o c om pe l; (ii ) of

feri ng no vi ab le ex pl an at io n fo r in it ia ll y de nyin g t he de fen da nt s’ reque stforadm is si on s t ha t wer e la te r adm it te d; an d (i ii )

4fai li ng to subm ita pr op os edco ns ol id at edpre tri al ord er b y th e co urt’s d ead li ne . He di d n otarg ue , bef

or e th e d is tri ctco urt, tha t s an ct io ns were n otap pr op ria te for (1 ) th e fi li ng a fri vo lo us m ot io n t o c om pe l, as th e sa fe-h arb or

pro vi si on un de r Fed .R.Ci v.P . 11 (c)( 2) pre cl ud edsan ct io ns , or (2 ) th e d en ie d a dm is si on s, b ecau se th ey were o f no “ subs ta nt ia l i m po rta nc e,” u nd er Fe d. R. C iv . P. 37 (c). Co ns eque nt ly, he waiv edth es e cl ai m s. 1 As t o t he pre se rv edis su e o n app eal , whi ch co nc ern s Sa tc he r’s fai lu re t o ti m el y subm ita pr etria l o rd er, the re i s n o d is pu te th atth e p art ie s d idno t s ub m ita
co ns ol id at edpre tri al ord er b y th e co urt’s i ni ti al de ad li ne . The ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng Sat ch er’s o wn s ta te m en ts on th e m at te r, supp ort the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t h e
was res po ns ib le forth e n on co m pl ia nc e an d t ha t h e fai le d t o c on ta ctde fen se
co un se l t o a rran ge a co nf eren ce re ga rd in g t he ord er. Giv enth e “ gr eatde fere nc e” th atwe affo rdto a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f it s l oc al rul es , andSat ch er’s cl ear f ai lu re t o c om

pl y with aco urt o rd er, the co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y im po si ng san ct io ns forfai li ng to ti m el y subm itth e requi redord er. AFFIRMED.
In any event, even if not waived, Satcher has abandone d any challeng e to the district court’s 1 other rea sons for imposing sanctions ag ain s t h i m for the filing of a frivolous motion to compel, including his failure to confe r with counsel, under Fe d.R.Civ.P
. 37(a) (1), and filing the motion without substantial justification, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g ), bec ause heraises no a rguments in this respe ct. Simi larly , even if Satcher did not waive his “substantial importance ” claim reg arding the propriety of sanctions under Rule 37(c) , the court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning him for ref using to corr ect re s p o n s es to reque sts for admissions, despite admitting the substance of those admissions at a diffe rent point. 5