Opinion ID: 703589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 3 In October 1990, Lawrence filed separate suits pro se against Sheraton. Lawrence alleged that he and Sheraton had entered into an oral joint venture agreement to build a hotel. Lawrence alleged Sheraton breached this oral agreement by not paying $1 million on Lawrence's behalf to Executive Life Insurance Company (Executive Life), to satisfy loan obligations Lawrence owed to Executive Life. 4 Lawrence failed to respond to Sheraton's interrogatories and requests for document production, which were served on May 18, 1992. When the June 18, 1992 deadline passed with no response or request for extension of time from Lawrence, the district judge intervened. At the court's direction, Lawrence and Sheraton stipulated to a discovery schedule. This schedule required Lawrence to provide an exhibit list and interrogatory responses by September 15, 1992. It further required Lawrence to produce the requested documents starting on July 24, 1992 and continuing with ten bankers boxes per week until all documents were produced. 5 The district judge ordered the parties to put the oral stipulation into writing and file it with the court. Sheraton drafted the stipulation, but Lawrence refused to sign it. Sheraton then filed an Ex Parte Application for Order on Oral Stipulation (stipulation order), which the district judge entered on August 20, 1992. The stipulation order incorporated the terms of the oral stipulation. 6 Lawrence then requested additional time, through November 1992, to finish producing the requested documents. Sheraton agreed to an extension provided it was embodied in a stipulation and order approved by the court. Sheraton sent Lawrence a stipulation to modify the order, which Lawrence refused to sign. 7 On November 30, 1992, Sheraton wrote to Lawrence concerning his failure to comply with the stipulation order. Sheraton itemized the discovery still due. Lawrence responded by claiming that the magistrate judge had extended the discovery deadlines set forth in the order. The magistrate judge subsequently rejected Lawrence's claim that the deadlines had been extended. 8 A meet and confer conference was scheduled at Lawrence's request to discuss his failure to produce the requested discovery. After Lawrence postponed the conference eleven times, Sheraton filed a Motion for Terminating, Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiffs for Failure to Comply with the Order on Oral Stipulation (first motion to dismiss). The magistrate judge partially granted Sheraton's motion, ordering Lawrence to complete his discovery responses by May 14, 1993 and imposing a $1,000 sanction (the discovery order). The discovery order also stated that [i]f Plaintiffs fail to comply with this Order, the Court will entertain a motion for evidence preclusion or outright dismissal. 9 On May 14, 1993, Sheraton received Lawrence's Supplemental Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, and his Production of List of Documents to be Used at Trial in Support of Plaintiff's Complaint. 10 On July 6, and July 16, 1993, Sheraton sent Lawrence letters explaining the deficiencies in his responses and requesting supplementation. On July 28, 1993, Sheraton received plaintiff's second supplemental response. 11 On August 9, 1993, Sheraton filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Orders and Monetary Sanctions (second motion to dismiss). Sheraton alleged that Lawrence had willfully failed to comply with the court's discovery order. First, Lawrence allegedly failed to produce written agreements which he had previously alleged existed. Second, Lawrence allegedly failed to identify both the Sheraton participants in the claimed joint ventures and the terms of the claimed joint venture agreement. Third, the list of documents Lawrence intended to rely upon at trial was allegedly inadequate because it failed to identify specific documents. 12 The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on January 4, 1994. The magistrate judge found that the deficiencies identified by Sheraton in its motion violated the discovery order. He recommended that the district court enter judgment granting Sheraton's second motion to dismiss. 13 On February 8, 1994, the district court entered an order adopting the report and recommendation, and entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Lawrence filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. This appeal followed.