* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation

of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms

and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/4/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

G. ANN SAATHOFF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FILENET CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

DAVID L. SMITH,

Attorney-Appellant.

No. 95-1206

(D.C. No. 93-B-2396)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted

without oral argument.

Plaintiff-appellant G. Ann Saathoff and attorney-appellant David L. Smith appeal

from various rulings of the district court entered in the course of plaintiff’s lawsuit against

her former employer, Filenet Corporation. Specifically, appellants appeal from an order

granting summary judgment to defendant, rulings resolving various discovery disputes, and

the imposition of sanctions against Smith. Appellants also allege error in the district court’s

refusal to recuse, its removal of Smith as plaintiff’s attorney, and its requirement that plaintiff

post an appeal bond.

Plaintiff began work for Filenet in April 1990 as a senior field engineer answering to

Michael Maziarz, as her immediate supervisor. She alleges that while working with

Maziarz, she was subjected to several incidents of sexual harassment and was passed over

for critical software training. Although her most recent employment evaluation rated her

performance as up to the expected level, her employment record reveals that she was also the

frequent target of complaints by defendant’s customers for various failings in her service. 

As a result of a shortfall in revenue goals for the fourth quarter of 1992, Filenet

decided to eliminate certain jobs and institute other cost-cutting measures. Plaintiff, the only
3

senior field engineer and the only female in the Denver office, was among those whose job

were terminated. 

As part of the termination process and in return for an enhanced severance payment

of $2,350.52, plaintiff signed a release and waiver of all claims, known and unknown, which

she may have had against Filenet. Later, through her attorney, plaintiff attempted to rescind

the release but refused to return the severance payment as demanded by Filenet.

Plaintiff then brought claims against Filenet for alleged violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e -2000e(17), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended by the

Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). In her complaint, she alleged that her

termination was based on illegal gender discrimination arising out of her relationship with

Maziarz, that she was the victim of retaliation because of her opposition to various illegal

practices, and that she had also been retaliated against for exercising a work-related right

under Colorado common law.

A large part of appellants’ brief is devoted to contesting the imposition of monetary

sanctions against attorney Smith and other disciplinary action imposed on him both by the

Tenth Circuit and by the District of Colorado. With regard to the monetary sanctions

imposed by the district court in the course of this case, we have reviewed the record and find

no abuse of discretion. See Willner v. University of Kan., 848 F.2d 1023, 1030 (10th Cir.

1988)(upholding sanction of dismissal for failure to provide discovery), cert. denied, 488

U.S. 1031 (1989). The additional disciplinary actions taken against Smith have been
1 We note that appellants’ brief was filed during the time Smith was under suspension

by this court and prohibited from filing briefs on behalf of clients. See In re Smith, 10 F.3d

723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 53 (1994). The brief is signed by both

appellants although it is clear that Smith wrote the brief. While it would be within our

authority to dismiss this appeal because of Smith’s participation in the preparation of the

brief, in the interest of judicial economy we will interpret plaintiff’s signature on the brief

as her attempt to appear in this court in a pro se capacity and proceed to address the merits.

4

reaffirmed by this court in In re Smith, 76 F.3d 335, 336 (10th Cir. 1996), which effectively

disposes of his arguments in that regard.

Turning to plaintiff’s portion of this appeal, we note that plaintiff has not paid the

$4,500 appeal bond ordered by the district court. Plaintiff is permitted to argue the propriety

of the bond requirement without having first posted the bond. See Sckolnick v. Harlow, 820

F.2d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 1987)(affirming a bond requirement and allowing plaintiff until a date

certain to post bond or risk dismissal). Plaintiff cannot prevail on this issue, however,

because our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion in the district court’s action.

See Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Bader & Dufty, 627 F.2d 221, 224 (10th Cir. 1980). 

Having determined that the bond requirement was appropriate but remains unpaid, our

normal course would be to invoke 10th Cir. R. 42.1 to dismiss this appeal for want of

prosecution unless plaintiff cures the default within a definite time period. However, because

this case has been fully briefed, we also have the option of reviewing the merits. See Perry

v. Pogemiller, 16 F.3d 138, 140 n.1 (7th Cir. 1993)(reaching merits under similar

circumstances).1
5

As noted above, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant

on all claims. Initially, plaintiff argues that the district court erred in denying or limiting

discovery. The magistrate judge, after reviewing plaintiff’s discovery requests, concluded

that the requested materials were either irrelevant to plaintiff’s case or confidential and

subject to a protective order. Plaintiff has failed to establish the relevance of the disputed

documents, and she and her attorney refused to sign a protective order other than a simple

statement insufficient to protect defendant’s interests. 

We have reviewed the protective order proposed by defendant and agree with the

district court that it was fair and reasonable. The district court thus did not abuse its

discretion in limiting plaintiff’s overbroad and onerous discovery demands.

Finally, we agree with the district court that the release signed by plaintiff was valid

and enforceable and that her refusal to return the consideration paid for that release made her

revocation attempt ineffective. As such, the release bars plaintiff’s claims against Filenet

making the grant of summary judgment required as a matter of law. We have examined the

record and briefs with regard to appellants’ remaining arguments and are satisfied that

appellants have shown no basis for reversal of the district court’s orders. 

Filenet’s motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice because of plaintiff’s failure to

file an appeal bond is denied as moot. Considering the procedural posture of this case, that

the major sanctions against Smith were before the en banc court at the time, and that the

defalcations appear to be largely the fault of plaintiff’s attorney Smith, defendant’s motion
6

for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 is denied. Smith is warned that further attempts

by him to relitigate these issues or other issues already determined and foreclosed by this

court may result in sanctions. See In re Smith, 77 F.3d 493 (Table), No. 95-1119, 95-1091,

1996 WL 67191 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 1996).

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge