Opinion ID: 197179
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) Re: Identification of Documents.

Text: 31 The trial judge found that the defendants had improperly failed to produce four categories of documents in response to plaintiff's legitimate discovery requests: a report by an independent testing service listing each applicant's score on the written examination; a list of code numbers assigned to each applicant who took the written exam; a list showing the actual hiring rank of each applicant who took the training course, and pleadings in other civil rights cases against the town of Johnston. 32 The first three categories of documents, in particular, would have gone far to uncover the speciousness of the defendants' claim that applicants to the fire department received their jobs based on objective criteria. The court found that each of the four categories of documents was in the defendants' possession and that a reasonable search would have located them. The Advisory Committee's Notes to the 1983 amendments to Rule 26 spell out the obvious: a certifying lawyer must make a reasonable effort to assure that the client has provided all the information and documents available to him that are responsive to the discovery demand. Here, the trial court's finding that no such effort was made is well supported. Imposition of sanctions under Rule 26(g)(3) constituted no abuse of discretion. 33