UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHELDON H. BRAITERMAN; SHELDON

H. BRAITERMAN, PA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. No. 96-1799

R. M. EQUIPMENT, INCORPORATED;

RONALD J. MARTIN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge.

(CA-93-126-N)

Argued: April 7, 1998

Decided: June 26, 1998

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAMBERS,

United States District Judge for the Southern District of West

Virginia, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Martin Eugene Wolf, Abingdon, Maryland, for Appellants. Adam Shartzer Caldwell, JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C.,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Sheldon H. Braiterman, SHELDON H. BRAITERMAN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellants. Peter F. Axelrad, JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant, Sheldon H. Braiterman, brought suit against

R.M. Equipment (owned by Ronald J. Martin), claiming that Martin

owed fees for legal services allegedly rendered by Braiterman

between January 1990 and the summer of 1992. After a seven-day

jury trial on appellant's claim, the jury returned a verdict in defendant's favor. On appeal, Braiterman alleges that the jury verdict

should be overturned because the district court improperly denied

Braiterman's pre-trial Motion for Sanctions, which apparently

requested that the district court compel further deposition of Martin.*

This court has held that district court decisions regarding discovery

matters should "not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, or unless there is a real possibility the party was prejudiced

by the denial" of discovery. Strag v. Board of Trustees, 55 F.3d 943,

954 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Ardrey v. United Parcel Service, 798

F.2d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 1986) (noting that "it is unusual to find an

abuse of discretion in discovery matters") (citation omitted). Having

reviewed the record and the submissions of the parties, we are convinced that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing

to grant Braiterman further deposition of Martin.

The district court was in the best position to assess Braiterman's

_________________________________________________________________

*Martin's counsel, Ms. Rothenberger, terminated the deposition of

Martin after a day and a half because she believed that Braiterman was

making inappropriate comments to her and her client.

 2
need for additional discovery in light of both the protracted discovery

that had already occurred, see District Court Order, J.A. at 323

(noting that "discovery was to have been concluded long ago" and

that it had been unduly protracted by the persistent"delay tactics" of

both parties), and the apparent inability of counsel for both sides to

conduct the deposition in a productive and professional manner, see

id., J.A. at 323 & n.1 (rejecting appellant's Motion for Sanctions

because the transcript of Martin's deposition thus far revealed "inappropriate behavior on the part of both counsel" and confirmed that

"each attorney's [inappropriate] conduct incited that of the other").

Moreover, Braiterman has failed to establish a real possibility that he

was prejudiced by the court's refusal to grant additional discovery.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

 3