Opinion ID: 2974272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Less Drastic Sanctions

Text: Lastly, the record reveals that less drastic sanctions were imposed before the default judgment was entered against Defendants. The district court’s order of January 28, 2004 awarded Plaintiff’s counsel compensation in the amount of $3,260 for the time he “expended in attempts to obtain compliance with the magistrate judge’s discovery order.” (J.A. at 218.) The evidence shows that the district court did not hastily enter the default judgment, and had in fact openly contemplated the harshness of such an action during the December 17, 2003 hearing. At the hearing, the district court expressed its reluctance about enforcing the sanctions, but warned that it would not tolerate Defendants’ continuing to “see how much they could get away with.” It appears from the record that the district court felt that Defendants, and especially John Anson, were deliberately flouting the authority of the court, knowing that the sanction of default judgment is, as the case law reveals, a “last resort.” It seems that in this case, John Anson went too far, ignored the court’s warnings, and did not appreciate, even after being warned and ordered to pay Plaintiff’s counsel’s expenses, that this particular district court was serious about not tolerating further discovery abuses. 16 No. 05-5300 In light of a record chock-full of evidence of flagrant discovery abuses and even misrepresentations to the district court and magistrate, we decline to reverse the default judgment against Defendant John Anson.