## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3287 J ORGE N EGRE TE, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. N ATI ONA L R AI LROAD P ASS ENGER C OR PORAT I ON (A m trak), D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C873

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Judg e.
A RGUED A PRI L 10, 2008

— D ECIDED O CT OB ER 27, 2008
Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d R OVNER an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . J or ge N egr ete , a form ertr ackrep air w o r k er forA m trak, hu rt his back w he n h e fel l off a wel di ngt r uck

. H e su ed Am tr ak, a l l eg i ngtha t th e i nj ury had l eft hi m per m anentl y di sabl ed and unabl e t o w or k. The di str i ct c ou rt, however, di sm i sse d his cas e afterdeter m i ni ng tha t N egr ete had i ntenti onal l y fl outed disc ove rydeadl i nes, hi dd en and tam pered with evi dence, an d lied in h is d ep os itio n . W e a ffirm , a n d be c au se it2 N o. 07

- 3287

a p p e a r s th a tNe g r e t e ma y hav e c o mmi t t e d p e rj u r y, we re ferthi s o pini on t o the Unite d Sta tes A tto rney . N egr ete ’ s l i ti gat i on co nd uct i n thi s ca se can o nl y b e described as appall i ng. The pro bl em s be gan when A m trak tried to inves tigate the all egatio n s i n N egrete’s l aw sui t. U nd er sta n d abl y, i t s ought to answ ertwo questi o ns : ho w ba dly Neg r et e was i nj ur ed, a nd whe th erhe was s ti l l able to wor k

. To s he d l i g hto n the fi r stque st i o n, i t a ske d N egret e forthe nam e o fea ch docto r w ho had se enhi m f o r hi s i nj ur y . Neg r et e pr o vi ded o nl y the nam es ofthe docto rs wh ose fi nd i ngs he l ped his case , w i thhol ding the nam es oftwo w ho had co ncl ud ed that he was not perm anentl y inj ured and w as abl e t o w or k. H e also neglected to m en tio n the n am e of a third doc tor, wh o h a d p e r f o r me d a n MR Io n h i m. W i th the exce pti on o fthe M RI, wh i ch A m tr ak w as unabl e to l o ca te fora l m o sta y ea r, Am tr akwas n’ t pr ej udi ce d b y Neg r et e’ s dec ei t; i t al r ea dy k ne w ab o uta l l b ut one of t h e un d isclosed doc tors. B ut becau se N egrete’s incom p lete answ ers left the i m p r e s sion th at it w asn ’t get ting t h e w hol e s tory, A m tr ak tr i ed to o btain copi es o fthe medi ca l r ec o r ds k ept by the Ra i l r o ad Re ti r ement Board ( “RRB ”)
. Once ag ai n the invest i gat i on was thw ar ted. A m tr ak re quested a copy of the fi l e from N egr ete ( the RRB w i l l o nl y di scl ose m ed ica l r ecords t o a pa ti ent) , wh o re sponded bydel i ver i ng 12 pages . A m tr ak coul dn ’ t be l i eve thatthe 12 pages were a co m ple te rec ord, so i t m ove d to com pel pro du cti on, afterwh i ch N egr et e e ventual l y turned ov er23 6 page s. These i nc l ude d a ne ve r -be for e- di sc l o se d r epo r t bya n RR BN o. 07

- 3287 3 physi ci an, w ho d i sag re ed w i th a pri ord oct or ’ s co ncl usi on th at N eg r et e co ul dn’ t wor k

. S tr an g ely, ho wev er, the su ppo se dl y c o m ple te 2 36

- pag e fi l e di d no t co nt ain the 12 pages N egr ete had or i gi nal ly produced. Tir ed ofthes e sh en an i g an s, the c o ur t o r der ed N eg r et e to o bta i n a se al ed copy o fhi s RRB fi l e an d t o s ubmi t th atfi l e, unopened, f ori nspe c ti on. H e e ventual l y turned ov eran e nv e l o pe p ur po r t i ngt o b e the fi l e , b utthe e nv e l o pe had been o pened

— tw i ce

— l eaving the co urt to specul ate that he had once ag ai n tam pered with the fi l e. I n ad d iti on to inv estigating the seriousn ess of N egrete’s i nj ury, A m tr ak a lso tr i ed to as ses s whether N egr ete was stil l abl e t o w or k, i nquir i ng ab out al l the sour ces of N egr ete ’ s postac ci dent i ncom e. Once aga i n it w as thw ar ted. A t a deposi ti on N egr ete i ni ti al l y tes ti fi ed that he had no i n c om e a part fro m the m oneyhe r ecei ved fr o m A m tr ak

. W he n a sk ed spe ci fi ca l l y whethe r he o wned an y pr o per ty, ho wev er, he admi tt ed ow ni ng one apart m en t b uil ding w i th two te nants, ea ch ofwh om pai d him $4 50 per m onth, bu t st at ed that he di d not own any othe r bui l dings

. Both o fthes e r esponse s turned o utt o b e f al se . Neg r et e’ s 20 02 thr o ug h 2 00 5 ta x return s r e v e a l e d th a th e h a d a tl e a s t$ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 i n i n c o me fr o m three apart m ent b uil dings

. A nd hi s r entalr ecei pt boo kl ets

— w hose exi ste nce he i ni ti al l y deni ed

— in dica ted that he r ecei ved not$4 50 per m onth but $650 perm onth fro m hi s r ental s. ( A dd i ng to the i m press i on that Negre te w as hi ding i ncom e were a num bero fl oan applica tions on w hi ch N egr ete cl aim ed to r ecei ve not $450 perm onth bu t $800 or even $1,0 0 0 p er m ont h from each tena nt !) W or se sti l l, A m tr ak l ate r disc ove re d that Negre te had not4 N o. 07

- 3287 tw o ten ants, as he o ri gi nal l y t est i fi ed, notsi x tenants as he l ate r cl ai m ed, but fifteen te nants. So the distric t co urt f ound that Negre te w as tr yi ng to hi de hi s r entali ncom e, wh i ch w as re l evantto hi s ca se because he c l ai m ed to be unabl e t o ear n a l ivi ng be cause ofh is inj u ry . But i t a l so appears that N egr ete m ay have been tr yi ng to hi de the re ntal in com e fora seco nd r eason. A l th ou gh N egr ete te sti fi ed at hi s deposi ti on that he was unabl e t o do eve n m i norhouse w or k, hi s ten ants to l d a n Am tr ak inves ti g at o r tha t sinc e th e ac ci den t N egr ete had pers onal l y pai nted, change d w in d ows, r e pa i r e d a fl o o r, l a i d t i l e , a n d i n s t a l l e d a n e w t o i l e t
. We m ay n ev er know f orsur e whether that w as tr ue: N egr ete se eks to e xpl ain the di sc r epa nc y b y c l ai m i ngtha t th e tenants co nfuse d him with h is s ons, wh om he c l ai m s t o ha v e p a i d t o wo r ko n the a pa r t men t s , a nd the di s tr i ct cour t di d not m ake a sp ec ific fi nd i ng o n the i ssue. W hat i s cl ea r, ho wev er, is t ha t N eg r et e was l es s th anf o r th

com in g about w ho a ctual l y per f or m ed the m ai ntenance on hi s a partm ents. A t hi s deposi ti on he fi rs t ind i cate d that hi s broth erm ai ntai ned the a partm ents i n exchange f orbee r. A nd i n re sponse to a l ate r i nter ro gat or y r eq u est
i ng a l i st ofea ch pers on w ho had bee n pai d to do m ai nten an c e o n h is a p ar tm en ts , N eg re te d i s c l os ed on ly h is sons. W hen hi s sons w er e deposed, how eve r, theydeni ed eve r havi ng been pai d to do m ai ntenance ( they cl ai m ed to have hel ped thei r f athe r f orfre e) and tes ti fi ed that thei r f atherhad hi re d contr acto rs to do the l ar ge m ai ntenance proj ects o n the apart m ent. N egr ete then adm i tte d t o h i r i nga dr y - wa l l c o nt r acto r a nd p r o mi s e d t o p r o v i de hi s co ntact i nfo rm ati on but l ate r cl ai m ed not to have i t.N o. 07

- 3287 5

I n M a yn ard, we he l d that di s m i s s al was appr opr i at e onl y if 1 the re is clear an d con v incin g ev id en ce of w illfu lness, b ad f aith or f aul t, butwe ha ve su b s equen t l y s ugge s t ed thatthe prepo nd eran ce- of

- the- evidence s tandard i s m ore approp ri ate. Se e Wa de, 50 0 F
. 3d a t56 4. The re i s no ne ed t o r es ol ve the s t anda rd h er e bec aus e the e vi denc e was c l ea r and c onvi nc i ng. Re l y i ngo n the se pr ev ar i ca ti o ns a nd o th er s ( th e dist ri ct cour t note d, f or exam ple , that N egr ete m i sse d 21 disc ove rydeadl i nes

— i n one case , veri fyi ng hi s inter ro gato ryr esponse s m or e than one yea r late ) , the dist ri ct cour t di sm i sse d the l aw sui t under Rule 37(b) ( 2)(A )( v) o f the Fed eral R ules o

f C iv il P roc edu re, wh i ch author i zes dism i ssa l as sa ncti on for di sco ver y v i ol ati ons. Dis m i ssa l i s a dras ti c penal ty, but i t w as n o abuse ofdi scr eti on t o dism i ss thi s ca se gi ven Negre te’ s r ep ea te d , wil l ful eff or ts to h id e e vid en c e. See Wadev. So o L i neR. R. Corp. , 50 0 F.3 d 55 9, 56 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); M ayna r d v
. Nygren , 3 32 F.3 d 46 2, 46 7 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). N eg re te arg u es th at h is 1 m i sta kes were i nnocent, but w e wil l o ver turn f actual det e r mi n a t i o n s o n l y i fth e y a r e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , a s ta ndar d no t m ethe r e. Tr ue , Neg r et e often pr o duce d do cum ents dir ectly c ontr ad i cti ng hi s deposi ti on t est i m ony, b u t t h at d o es n otp ro ve , as h is law ye r c laim s, th at h is f al se tes ti m ony w as i nadvert ent; i t s how s o nl y that N eg r et e i s a po o r l i ar . Gi ve n Neg r et e’ s r epe at ed m i sc o ndu ct, i t w oul d hav e been hard to re ach any c onclusi on o th ertha n tha t he was a ct i ngi n b ad f ai th

. N egr ete al so ar gues that the s ancti on o f d i sm i ssa l was to o h ar shb ec au se he i s une duca te d a nd l i ed o nl y abo ut col l at er ali ss ue s. ButNeg r et e’ s m i sc o nduc t r el at ed to the6 N o. 07

- 3287

m osti m port ant i ssues o fthe case

— how badl y he w as i nj ur e d a nd wh e the r h e wa s ab l e t o wo r k

. And al though N egr ete m ay not be we ll e d ucated, i t doe s no t t ake a gr aduate degr ee to und er sta nd t h at i t i s unacce ptabl e t o hid e evide nc e and l ie in a d ep ositi on. Th e d istri c t cou rt’s anal ysi s was tho ro ugh; di sm i ssa l was an appropr i ate sa nc ti o n. A FFI RMED .

10- 27- 08