Opinion ID: 2974272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fault of the Defendant

Text: 12 No. 05-5300 Applying the first of the Regional Refuse factors, we believe that the record from the district court adequately establishes that there was wilfulness, bad faith, and fault on the part of the primary defendant in this case, John Anson. The transcript of the December 17, 2003 hearing contains numerous references to the fact that John Anson was the driving force behind the delay and lack of cooperation. The district court questioned counsel Darby about why John Anson had failed to respond to the interrogatories, at one point, asking whether Anson had “something better to do than answer interrogatories.” (J.A. at 388.) At another point, the district court commended Darby for “coming in here and taking this kind of assault on what your client and your client’s representatives have done, or more particularly, not done over the past 12 months.” (J.A. at 384.) The district court also explicitly referred to what it considered to be John Anson’s bad faith in refusing to answer or being evasive in answers to interrogatories, stating “had the defendant been operating in good faith, he would not have simply said, ‘you don’t need this information until the judgment is affirmed’ . . . they would have . . . gone into the court and said, I would like the court to put this matter into a class of stay until this is determined . . . .” (J.A. at 382.) The court repeatedly remarked upon the fact that this behavior predated Darby, who was the third or perhaps fourth attorney representing Defendants, and that there was a history of ignoring discovery requests and orders from the magistrate judge. In response to a suggestion that the records were simply too “massive” to readily produce, the Court challenged, “Mr. Darby, if it is so massive, where has Mr. Anson been since December of 2002? This is not something that has come up since October . . . Mr. Anson has the responsibility to provide this information . . . and you have said that this has been a 13 No. 05-5300 daily effort [to produce the requested documents]. . . And I would simply say that that is hard for this Court to believe to be a truthful statement.” (J.A. at 364-65.) The district court also referred to what it called “artful” answers, suggesting that John Anson had deliberately structured answers in such a manner to avoid actually lying in the interrogatories, but evading answering the questions. (J.A. at 374.) The district court judge further opined that he had “a distinct flavor here that there has been a ‘let’s see how much we can get away with’ in this case . . . by Mr. Anson and the people working with him and, arguably counsel.” (J.A. at 361.) As stated in Regional Refuse, “[w]hile this circuit has been more ready than others to reverse dismissals for disobedience to discovery orders, especially when it appears that the party is blameless, this is not a case in which a party has simply failed to appear and no one is clearly at fault except for the party’s attorney.” Regional Refuse, 842 F.2d at 150. The Court concludes that in this case the evidence suggests that John Anson was at fault for the discovery abuses, and therefore, the first Regional Refuse factor is satisfied.