Th e Gr ang e pla int if fs su e d M a c k in Ca se No . 07- 50 97

. A se c on d set of ins ur anc e pla int if

fs , 1 led by Allstate, sued Mac k in Ca se No. 07-5387. The c ases have bee n consolidated for appea l. The issues in the two case s ar e identical, and we r efe r to all plaintiffs collec tively as Gra ng e or the Gra ng e plaintiffs.

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0152n.06 F iled: Marc h 17, 2008 Nos. 07-5097/5387 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

GR ANG E MUTUAL CASUALTY COMP ANY, GR ANG E I N D EMN I TY INSURANCE COMP ANY, and T RUSTGUA RD INSURAN CE COMP ANY, P lai nt iffs- App e lle e s, AL LSTA TE IN SUR

AN CE CO M P AN Y, LIBE RT Y M UT UA L IN SUR

AN CE CO M P AN Y, LIBE RT Y M UT UA L F IR E IN SUR AN CE CO M P AN Y, THE F IRST L IBERTY INS URANC E CORP ORATION, LM INSURANCE CORP ORATION, I NDIANA IN SUR AN CE CO M P AN Y, and E M P LOY EES INSURANCE COMP ANY OF WAUSAU, P lai nt iffs- App e lle e s,

v. GREG S . MA CK, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On App eal from th e United St at e s D ist r ic t Cour t fo r th e Eas te r n Di st r ic t o f K e nt uc ky

B e fo re : B OG GS, Chi e f Jud g e ; B AT CH EL DE R and GR I F F I N; Cir c uit

Judg e s. PER CU RI AM . D e fe nd ant G re g Ma c k ap pe a ls a de fa ult jud g me nt a

nd su bs e qu e nt d e fa

ult

awa rd of d amag es ente red in fa vor of a g roup of insura

nce c ompanies (the “ Gra ng e plaintiffs” ). 1Nos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 2 - Mack bilked the companies by setting up medical clini cs t o treat auto accident victim s and then using those clinics to dia g nose phony injuries and overc harg e the companies for the need l es s medical

se rv ic e s pe rf

or me d. Th e Gr ang e pla int if fs dis c ov e re d the sc he me and su e d fo r frau d an d RI CO violations in Decembe r 2002. I n November 2004, District J udg e Joseph M. Hood warne d Mack that if he c ontinued obstructing discovery , the ca se would be tried on dama g es alone . Mack c ontinued his obstruction, and the judg e issued a defa ult judg ment as to liability in O ctober 2005. Mack the n continued obstructingthe Gra ng e plaintiffs’ da

mag es investig ations, so the d i s t ri ct court issued a de fa ult jud g me nt a s to dama g e s in De c e mbe r 2 00 6. Ma c k a pp e a ls, arguin g tha

t th e jud g e a

bu se d h is discretion in issuing the de fault judg ment. We affir m without hesitation, and hold that J udg e Hood acte d well within the discretion g iven to him by Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 37(b) (2)( C). I Gre g Mack operated multipl e medical treatment clinics for c ar a ccide nt victims i n easte rn and central Kentucky

. The Gr ang e plaintiffs a ccuse d Mack’ s clinics of double-billing , illega l fee

splitt ing, dia g nosing f

ake injurie s, and per forming excessive and unneede d medical treatment. The Gr ang e pla int if

fs su e d M a c k a

nd se ve ra l c or

po ratio ns he c on tr oll e d ( c oll e c tiv e ly “ Ma c k ” o r

“ the I RC defe ndants”) unde r RI CO, based on a conspi rac y

to submitfra

udulent health ca

re bills using the United States mail. Mack f iled an answ er de ny ing the alleg ations. Discover y beg an in Octobe r 2003. The district c ourt order ed all man d at ory Rule 26 discl o s u res to be completed bef ore D ece mber 12, 2003, a nd all discovery

to be finished by Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 04 . A lth ou g h th e Gr ang e pla int if fs c omp lie d w iththe Rul e 26 de a dli ne , th e I RC defe n dants delay ed their Rule 26 disclosure s until Februa ry 27, 2004, and their “ production”Nos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

On F e br ua ry 14 , 2 00 7, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d a de fa ult jud g me nt a g a ins t Ma c k a nd his 2 corpor ations in favor of

the Allstate plaintiffs for approximately

$5.4 milli on. - 3 - included no docume nts. The discovery proce ss went downhill from there. Gra ng e asked for a

status confe renc e to discuss discover y issues in October 2004. The dist rict court held the conf ere nce on November

1 5 , 2 004, and duringthis confer ence , it ex plicitly war ned the I RC defenda

nts that

co n t i n u edd i s co v ery

ab u s e wo u l d re s u l t i n a d ef au l t j u d gm en t
. De s p i t e t h i s co n fe re n ce , t h e G ra n ge plaintiffs wer e for ced to f

ile motions t o compel on Dec ember 9, 2004, and De cembe r 14, 2004. The motions were g rante d in part on F ebrua ry 8, 2005. L itigation continued, a

nd afte r two more status confer en ce s, the Gra ng e plaintiffs filed another motion to compel and a motion for sanc tions. The district court held a hear ing on O ctober 17, 2005, and at the he aring , it struck Mack’ s answer s and ordered the trial to proce ed on damag es

on ly . T his re su lt d id n ot a pp e ar t o f

a ze M a c k: I

n th e fo ur

te e n mo nth s f

oll ow ingthe de fa

ult jud g me nt o n liabi li ty , G ra ng e fi le d, and

the dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d, fo ur mor e mot ion s to c omp e l. Mack de fied them all. After the plaintiffs filed their

fourth motion, the district court orde red Ma ck to comply or risk beingheld in contempt. He did not comply

. Finally , on Dec ember 13, 2006, the district court ente red a defa ult judg ment ag ainst Mack a nd his alter-e g o corpor ations in favor of the Gra ng e plaintiffs for

$3,430,983.69, plus costs and attorney s’ fe es. Mack a ppeale d. 2 II J udg e Hood i s s u edt h e d ef au l tj u d gm en tb ec au s e o f M ac k ’s “w i l l fu l , p re judicial, and repeate d obstruction” of discovery and Mack’s “repea ted di sreg ard of the C ourt’s orde rs.” An a bbreviated summary of the thre e-volume r ecor d confirms Judge H ood’s ana ly sis of the situation.Nos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 4 - Ma c k tr ie d to blo c k th e Gr ang e pla int if fs ’ atte mpt s to take dis c ov ery fr om D r. Vi vie nte Santelices. Mac k’s (be lated) Rule 26 disclosure s identified Dr. Santelices as an employ ee of one of Ma c k’ s c lin ics, so th e Gr ang e pla int if fs su bp oe na e d Sa

nte lic e s a nd or de re d h im t o b ri ngc e rt a in documents to his September 23, 2003, dep o sition. Dr. Santelices appe are d, but out of the 42 documents re quested, he broug ht only his medical licenc e and c urr i cu l u m v i tae. When Gr ang e’s

c ouns e l a sk e d a

bo ut t he oth e r d oc ume nts , D r. Sa nte lic e s sa id t

hat he ha d s ho wn

the subp oen a

to Mack, a nd that Mack ha d instructed Santelice s not to produce the othe r d o cu m en t s . J udg e Hood found no leg itimate basis to withhold any of the doc uments that Mack told Santelices to withhold. Duri ngthe de po sit ion , the Gr ang e pla int if fs le arn e d th a t D r. Sante lic e s k e pt a date bo ok

wi th his da ily sch edu le for

tr e a tin g patie nts . T he y

a sk e d f or the bo ok , a

nd Dr . Sa nte lic e s a g re e d to p ro d u ce i t
. Bu t wh en Gr an ge fi n al l y re ce i v ed a co p y o f th e bo o k , m o s to f i t s p age s we re m i s s i n g. Gra ng e c o n ta c te d D r . Sa n te li c e s a b o u t th e mi s s in g p a g e s , an d Sa n te li c e s th e n g a v e G r a n g e a compl e te c o p y o f th e b o o k

. M a c k le ar n e d th a t D r . Sa

n te li c e s h a d tu

r n e d o v e r a c o mp le te c o p y of the book, and immediately fired him. On Aug ust 16, 2004, the Grang e plaintiffs subpoena ed the f iles of Robert Riley , afte r he had withdrawn a s counsel for Mack. Riley

aske d fo r a p ro t ective or der, a rg uing that the files wer e privileg ed. The court re sponded that Riley ’s re quest “won’ t fly ” bec ause R i l ey worke d as par t of Ma c k’ s o rg anizatio n a

nd no t a s se pa

ra te cou ns el. T he pa

rt ie s th e n a g re e d th a t pr od uc tio n w ou ld

occur at Riley ’s suburban L ouisvill e off ice on Oc tober 11, 2004. On the morning of Oc tober 11, Mack’s acting counsel t ried to m ove produc tion to counsel’s downtown offic es. Gra

ng e’s c ounsel ref

used, and pr od u ct i o n wa s held at Riley ’s offic e. Thre eNos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

Missing docume nts included rec ords of larg e cash withdrawa ls that w ere not r eporte d to the 3 I RS, re cords surrounding the suspension of Dr. DiBe netto’s medical licence , and re cords indicating that Mack w as billing for the servic es of non- phy sicians as if they wer e phy sicians. - 5 - c a te g or ie s o f d oc ume nts we re pr od uc e d. Rile y

pr oduced hi s ori g ina l f

ile s in tw o b oxe s, wh ile Mack’ s counsel produced copies labeled RW R-0001—RW R-02700 in one box and copies labe led RW R-GM-0001—RWR-GM-02350 in another box. Mack’s attorney s claimed that the boxes they produce d contained c omplete copies of Riley ’s orig inal file, but t he Gr ang e plaintiffs soon discovere d that document s were missing from the “ RW R” copies Ma ck had pr oduced, but we re available in Ril ey ’s orig inal files. Riley admitted in a later deposition that files had bee n remove d 3 from the “RWR” se ries. After discovering the discrepa ncy , the Gra

ng e plaintiffs sent Ma ck a le tter reque sting a

log of all missing documents and an int err og atory demanding the i dentity of all per sons who handled the “produc tion” of the “ RW R” and “ RW R-GM.” files. Ma ck ig nored both. The Gra ng e plaintiffs a

nd J udg e Hood suspec ted that Mac k attempted to move discove ry awa y from Riley ’s offic e in orde r to hide the improper remova l of documents. The Gr ang e plaintiffs fa

red no be tter in their written discovery attempts. They filed written dis c ov e ry re qu e sts on

Se pte mbe r 1 6, 20 04 , a

nd on Se pte mbe r 21 , 20 04 , bu t the re qu e sts we re sim ply ignor ed. At a status hearingon November 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e Gra

ng e plaintiffs told the district court about the ig nored r equests and a bout th e ep i s o d es involving Riley and Dr . Santelices. The court g a ve thi s w arn ing : I n these Rul es, i n Rule 26, are pretty serious admonit ions, and I take them to be law. And I enfor ce them, and I don’t cotton to people play ing g ames with my

discovery rules.Nos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

J oni Ma ck is G reg Mack’ s wife. She te stified that these files e x isted even thoug h Mack’ s 4 counsel sent multiple letters cla iming that they did not. - 6 - Now someone ’s messed with this discovery . Iam not blaming a ny one. Iam just say ing, the re’ s nothing wor se than a fede ral judge w ho thinks the discovery proce ss is being sc rew ed ar ound with. Now, y ou tell y our clients tha t i f they are scre wing around w ith my discovery proce ss, Ihave a

solution t o their problem. The s o l u t i o n is striking answe rs and trying matters on damag es only . Imean it.

. . . But y ou tell y our clients that if they want me to try

this on the issue of damag es, I am p e r f e c t l y c a p a b l e o f d o i n g t h a t
. A l l r i g h t ? Despite this blunt warning , Mack pr oduced nothing , so the Grang e plainti ffs filed y et another motion to c o mp e l. Sh o rtl y b e f

o r e h is r e s p o n s e w a s d

u e , M a c k s a id th a t a ll d o c u me n ts w e r e a vailable f or revie w at a stora g e unit in Heathr ow, Flor ida. When the Gra

ng e plaintiffs a

rrived at the storag e fac ility on Marc h 21, 2005, they discovere d that many

of the re qu es t ed d o cu m ents wer e missing. Per sonnel files desc ribed in Joni Mack’ s de po sit ion we re no t pr e se nt, no r w e re the ma jor ity of the patie nt f

ile s. F ur ther mor e , th e fa c ili ty 4 contained no doc uments descr ibing I RC’s operations af ter 2001. The Gra

ng e plaintiffs c omplained, and we re pe rmitted to r eturn in July to se e more documents, but onc e ag ain no curr ent patient files or bank r ecor ds were found. The same pattern of abuse and obstruction occur red with respec t to electronic discovery . The district court ente red the Parties’ Ag ree d Orde r reg arding elec tronic discovery in J anuar y 2004. TheNos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 7 - A g r e e d O r d e r r e qu i r e d M a c k t o i d e n t i f y all computers used in the course of his business and to have

a thi rd pa rt y c op y the ha rd dr ive s. On c e c op ie d, he wa s to lis t all files on the copied drives, and then identify the sp e c ifi c drive, file na

me, file date, and de scription of the infor mation in the file and then identify the sp e c ifi c basis for the obje ction for e v e ry file which he ref

used t o produce

. I n J uly

2004, he provide d a short list of patient files that he w as willing to make availa b l e, an d then, in direc t de fi anc e of

the Ag re e d Or de r, g a ve a g e ne ra l obje c tio n tha t “any oth e r f ile

. . . is no t r e le va

nt t o th e se proce eding s” and w ould not be produce d. Judg e Ho od

fo un d that on Oc tob e r 15 , 20 05 , a lmo st two y e ar s a ft e r t he e ntr y of the Part ie s’ Ag re e d O rd e r, Ma c k ( and his a lte r- e g o c or

po ratio ns ) ha d “ sti ll n ot i de nti fi e d a ll c omp ute rs us e d in the cour se of their

business.” Mack’ s wife admitted in he r deposition that, de spite pending litigation, Ma c k h a d r e pla c e d th e c omp any c omp ut ers in August an d Se pte mbe r 2 00 3. Ma c k r e fu se d to pr od uc e his ho me c omp ute r, e ve n th ou g h h e a dmi tte d th a t it ha d b e e n us e d fo r b us ine ss p ur po se s,

and lik e wi se re fu se d to pr od

uc e a c omp ute r t

hat had be e n u se d b y

L arr y L a mme rs , a

fo rm e r I RC employ ee the n in jail f

or prac ticing medicine without a license. The Gra ng e plaintiffs’ disc overy

of

a pa pe r c op y of an e -m a il se nt by Marg are t G ow se , a fo rm e r I RC c on su lta

nt, fo r w hic h n o e le c tr on ic version has e ver be en found, f urther sugg ested that Mack did not turn over a ll electronic evidenc e. Finally , on J uly

13, 2005, the Gra

ng e pl ai n t i ff

s deposed B elinda Stratton, Mack’ s office manag er. Stratton testified to the exis tence of at least four more file ca binets containing responsive do c ume nts , in c lud ingpatie nt fi le s, re po rt s, and e mpl oy e e fi le s, wh ic h ha d no t be e n tur ne d o ve r t o Gra ng e. She also indicated that sev er al box es of f inancial r ecor ds were stored under her de sk. Finally , she said that despite“ verifie d” stateme nts from Gre g Mack to the c ontrary , neither G regnorNos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 8 - Joni M a c k

h a d e v e r a s k e d S t r a t t o nt o g a t h e r

d o c um e n t s f

o r d i s c o v e r y . N o n e o f

t h e d oc ume nts Stratton identified have be en turne d over to the G rang e plaintiffs. III A Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

iss ue d th e de fa

ult jud g me nt o n li a

bil ity purs ua nt t o F e d. R. C iv. P. 37(b)( 2)(B ). We revie w a district cour t’s order s under this rule only for a n abuse of

discretion. Harmon v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 110 F.3d 364, 366 ( 6th Cir. 1997). B Fe d e r a l R u le o f Ci v il Pr o c e d

u r e 3 7 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( C) a ll o w s d is tr ic t j u d g e s to s an c ti o nd is c o v e ry abuser s. A district judge holds a variety of sanctions in his arsena l, the most severe of which is the po we r t o is su e a

de fa ult jud g me nt. F e d. R. C iv. P. 3 7(b)(2 )(B). W hen a d istri c t ju dg e us e s h is strong est wea

pon, we look to four fac tors to se e if he abused his discretion. Bank Oneof Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe , 916 F.2d 1067, 1073 ( 6th Cir. 1990). They are : 1) whether the disobedient party acte d in willful bad faith; 2) whether the opposing party suffe red pr ejudice; 3) whether the cour t warne d the dis ob e die nt part

y that fa ilure to co op e rate c ou ld r e su lt i n a de fa ult jud g me nt; and

4) wh e the r l e ss drastic sanctions wer e imposed or c onsidered. Ibid. In thi s c a se , a ll f our f a c tor s w e ig h s tr on g ly

in the Gra ng e plaintiffs’ f

avor, so we have no ne ed to balanc e them ag ainst eac h other. First, Mac k’s willful bad faith in thwa rting discovery

is so obvious t hat he doe s not bother contesting this point . A g lance at th e re co rd s h o ws why . Although our court he sitates, but is not entirely unwilling, to appr ove a de fault judg ment when a ny miscondu ct i s s o l el y

the fa ult of the

a ttorney , Ha r mon , 110 F.3d at 367–68, we nee d not hesitate her e bec ause Ma ck per petrated theNos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 9 - discovery abuse himself. Ma ck per sonally instructed Dr . Santelices not to produce n u m er ous dis c ov e ra ble do c ume nts and

pe rs on a lly

fi re d D r. Sante lic e s whe n th e do c tor tur ne d o ve r a

c omp le te

c op y of his date bo ok ins te a d of the e dit e d ve rs ion that Mac k in iti a lly tur ne d o ve r. Ma c k p e rs on a lly chang ed the office computers despite pending litigation, refused to turn over other computer s, and issued blanket, frivolous objections to the Gra ng e plaintiffs’ discovery

reque sts. Prior courts have treated s imilar frivolous objections as evidence of willful conduct. Bank One , 916 F.2d at 1074–75. Fur thermore, M ack’ s former counsel, Rober

t Ril ey , admitted that important documents had be en

remove d from his files. Doc uments do not jump out of file boxes on their own. Second, the Gr ang e plaintiffs we re p re j u d iced be cause they

never rec eived infor

mation critica l to t h ei r ca s e and bec ause the y had to waste signific ant time and money dealingwith the d ef endants’ a

buses. Once ag ain, Mac k does not contest this point. The Gra ng e plaintiffs ne ver

rec eived important pe rsonnel files, patient files, bank re cords, a nd internal c orre spondence . Wit hout this information, their ability to prepa re their case was c rippled. F or example, without patient files they could not prove w hi ch diagnose s were phony , and without the def endants’ inter

nal

corr espondenc e, they

could not establish the i ntent element in their R I CO claims. I nability to secure critica l information can c onstitut e pre judice. Harmon , 110 F.3d at 368. T h e d ef en d an t s ’ ob s t ru ct i o n i s m al s o co s t t h e Gr an ge pl ai n t i ff s t i m e an d m o n ey . As J u d ge Ho od pu t it : Plaintiffs have be en for ced to tur n t o t h e C o urt time and time ag ain to enfor ce compliance with the basic oblig ations of discover y , at a great cost in tim e and expense. I n some ca ses, as with t h e computer privileg e log and the doc ument reque sts in S eptember , 2004, plaintiffs have had to obtain n o t o n e, but two, ordersNos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 10 - from the c ourt to secur e compliance, as the I RC defenda nts have simply

ignor ed the Court’s first order s. Th e ob str uc tio n c on tin

ue d f or ov e r t wo y e ars . Co ur

ts h ave pr e vio us ly fo un d p re jud ic e su ff

ic ie nt t o uphold defa

ult judgments whe n the obstructing party had wa s ted fa

r less of the c ourt’s and the opposing litig ant’s time. See H armon , 110 F.3d at 368 (discover y reque sts ignore d for less than a y e ar) ; W anderer v . Johnston , 910 F.2d 652, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1990) (de fenda nts obstructed discover

y for e ighte en months). Th ir d, Ma c k r e c e ive d mo re tha n a de qu a te wa

rn ingabo ut the po ssi bil ity of a de fa ult judgme nt. Mack spends most of his t ime contesting this point , but his arg ument ignor es the he aring on November

15, 2004, at which he was c lear ly war ned about possibl e d ef

ault liability . Mack’ s claim that the “minute e ntry for the c onfer ence does not ref lect the f act that Ma ck wa s g i v en any

wa rn ing ” is i rr e le va

nt. Th e of fi c ia l trans c ri pt of the No ve mbe r 15, 20 04 , he ari ng re c or ds the pr e c ise

wo rd s o f J u d ge H o o d ’s wa rn i n g: I n these Rules, in Rule 26, are pretty serious admonitions, and I take them to be la

w.

. . . Now, y ou tell y our clients that if they are screwi n g around with my discovery proce ss, Ihave a

solution t o their problem. The solution i s s t ri king a nswers a nd trying matters on damag es only . Imean it.

. . . But y ou tell y our clients that if they want me to try

this on the issue of damag es, I am p e r f e c t l y c a p a b l e o f d o i n g t h a t
. A l l r i g h t ? Even Mac k’s forme r counsel admitted to rec eiving this warning . Mack c annot now pre tend otherwise.Nos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 11 - As to t he fo ur th f a c tor , M a c k a dmi ts that the re is no le g a l re qu ir e me nt fo r a dis tr ic t ju dg e to issue lesser sa

nctions befor e ente ring a def ault judgme nt, but ne verthe less contends that the district

c ourt sh ou ld h a ve us e d mo re “ g ra du a l” sanc tio ns in h is c ase. The dis tr ic t c ourt of fe re d th is

e xplanatio n w hy

the “ g ra du a l” sanc tio ns Ma c k w ante d w ou ld n ot w or k: No lesser sanction would be an appr opriate punishment for the I RC Defenda

nts. An or de r p re c lud ingthe I RC d e fen da nts fr om u sin g the inf

or ma tio n n ot p ro du c e d to support their claims or def enses would be impossibl e to fa shion, give n that no one, (except perha

ps the I RC def

endants themselves) knows what information has be en lost. I t is no punishm ent to the I RC defenda nts to forbid them from usi ng the inf or ma tio n th a t w a s o n th e los t c omp ute rs or in B e lin da

Str a tto n’ s f

ile s. The district cour

t’s rea soning pe rsuade s us beca use Mac k and the I RC defenda nts lost or destroy ed the information prec isely beca use they did not want it to be used at all. The district court c ontinued,

say ing that “ an awa

rd of a tto rn e y s’ fe e s and c os ts, e ve n if the I RC d e fe nd ants a c tua lly pa id, wo uld not fairly compensate Plaintiffs for t h e p re j udice they

suffe red, a

nd would do nothing to re cover information that could be e ssential to the Plaintiffs’ case at trial.” Mac k’s sug g estion that the district

c ourt sh ou ld h a ve e nte re d a

de fa ult on Gr ange’s state law c la ims , le a vin g the RI CO c la ims

un re so lve d, ig no res th e fa c t th a t Ma c k’ s o bs tr uc tio n thwa

rt e d G ra ng e ’s a bil ity to p ro ve its RI CO claims, not just it s state law c laims. I t is in case s like this one, where the obstruction preve nted the other pa rty from ac cessingevidenc e nee ded t o b ri n g the ca se, that def ault is most l ikely

to be the appropr iate sanc tion. See Regional Refuse Sy s., Inc. v . Inland Rec lamation Co. , 842 F.2d 150, 155 (6 t h C ir. 1988) (a ffirming dismiss al of c omplaint with prejudice be cause plaintiffs’ obstruction preve nted def

endants fr om learning“how the pla intiffs intended to prove the ir ca se”)

.Nos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 12 - Mack implies that the cour t should have bee n more hesitant to strike his answer s g iven that the c a se wa s a

RI CO c a se and

the c omb ine d d a ma g e s topp e d $8 milli on . But c ourt s h a ve pr e vio us ly issued defa

ult judgments, or dismiss ed complaints with prejudice , in high- stakes civil RI CO case s wher e a pa

rty wa s l ess obs tructive than Ma ck. See, e .g. , Harmon , 110 F.3d at 369 (dismissi ng

c omp la int in c ivi l RI CO c a se ); W

anderer , 910 F.2d at 657 (af firming $25 milli on defa

ult judgment in c ivi l RI C O c a s e )

. F i n a l l y , t h e f a c t t h a t M a c k c o n t i n u e d t o o b s t r u c t d i s c o v e r

y w i t h r e s p e c tto damag es for

fourtee n months after the district judg e had enter ed a def ault as to liability

shatters a ny illusi on that Mack w ould have r esponded to lesse r sanc tions. Ma c k’ s argume nt o n th is po in t is li ttl e mor e tha n a c on te nti on

that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c ou ld have e xer c ise d it s d isc re tio n d if fe re ntl y . T his is tr

ue , b ut i rr e le va

nt a nd no t ne c e ssa

ri ly he lpf ul t o Mack. Whil e J udg e Hood could have imposed more limit ed sanctions, J udg e Hood also could have exercised his discre tion to end Mack’s c hara de much soone r than he did. C Perhaps f rom an a bundance of ca

ution, the Grang e plaintiffs addre ss other issues, such a s the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dama g e c a lc ulatio ns and the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to a wa rd a tto rn e y s’ fe e s, in t

he ir briefs. But for e very

argument, either Ma ck did not raise the issue in his briefs to us, or he did not raise the issue below, or he raised it below, a nd raises it now, only

as a na ked asse rtion without any

su pp or tin g argume nt o r c a se law. Th e re fo re , M a c k h a s w a ive d th e se iss ue s and we wi ll n ot d isc us s them further

. See G eboy v . Brigano , 489 F.3d 752, 767 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 0 7) (“ I t is a well-esta blished principle that issues adve rted to in a pe rfunc tory manner , unacc ompanied by some eff

o rt at develope d argumentation, are deeme d waived.” ) (inter nal citations omitted); Kusens v. Pascal Co.,Nos. 07-5097

Gra ng e Mutual Casualty

Co. v. Mack

- 13 - Inc. , 448 F.3d 34 9 , 3 6 8 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ I t i s w e ll

- s e tt le d th a t i s s u e s n o t p r e s e n te d to th e d is tr ic t court but ra ised for the first time on appea l are not properly befor e this court.”)

. IV Our c ivil lega l sy stem hinge s on voluntary discovery

. Discover y abuser s must be sanctioned, beca use “[w]it hout adequate sanc tions , t h e p ro cedures for discovery

would be inef

fec tual.” 8A Wright, Miller & Kane , Fede ral Practice and Proc edure § 2281 (2d ed. 1994). J udg e Hood a cted

we ll w ith in h is d isc re tio n in or de ri ng the de fa ult jud g me nt. We a ff

ir m, b oth to p un ish Ma c k f or his eg reg ious conduct and to de ter other litigants who mig ht be temp t ed t o m ak e a moc kery of the discovery proce ss. See Nat’l Hoc key League v. M

etro. Hock

ey Club , 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976) (pe r curiam). The judg ment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED.