Opinion ID: 781170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Effectiveness of Alternative Sanctions

Text: 23 The District Court found that no other sanction besides exclusion (and consequently dismissal) would remedy the prejudice to Rodale, which had been deprived of a full opportunity to examine WCI's damages claim, as it was revealed only one week before trial was scheduled and without any supporting documentation. At this very late stage of a protracted litigation, the District Court found that it was neither appropriate nor economical to reopen discovery to allow Rodale the necessary time to investigate the damages claim. This was particularly so because WCI agreed in the October 2000 Stipulation that further noncompliance with discovery orders would be penalized by exclusion. 24 WCI's argument before us is twofold. First, it alleges that the District Court more appropriately should have excluded that portion of the damages calculation in the pretrial memorandum that was over and above the calculations provided in Reginald Ware's deposition. In other words, the District Court should have effected a partial exclusion of only the new damages. There are at least a couple of problems with this argument. As noted above, the deposition testimony was (at best) tentative, imprecise, and unsupported. In addition, to the extent that Reginald Ware's deposition statements may be deciphered, his figures address the same variables as found in the sparse calculations found in the pretrial memorandum — i.e., advertising commissions, sale price of the magazine, and forecasted net profits. In other words, the pretrial memorandum does not proffer a new damages calculation, or at least it does not do so in a form cleanly separable from those referenced in the deposition testimony. Partial exclusion would appear to be untenable. 25 WCI's second argument is that the District Court alternatively should have levied money sanctions on plaintiff's counsel, as permitted by Rule 37. It is true that Plaintiff's counsel still has not provided any explanation for his conduct. But even if we opt for money sanctions rather than exclusion of evidence, this does not support concluding that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering dismissal. See Poulis, 747 F.2d at 870.