Opinion ID: 747768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dismissal of Dr. Ladien's Case

Text: 50 Rule 37(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part: 51 Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery: Sanctions 52 (b) Failure to Comply With Order. 53 ... 54 (2) Sanctions by Court in Which Action is Pending. If a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery ... the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following: 55 ... 56 (C) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party. 57 Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b). Furthermore, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part: 58 Involuntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. 59 Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). 5 These rules allow a district court to impose sanctions, including dismissal, upon a party for that party's persistent failure to comply with discovery and scheduling orders. Patterson, 852 F.2d at 285. Moreover, a district court's power to dismiss a case serve[s] not only to protect defendants but also to aid courts in keeping administrative control over their own dockets and to deter other litigants from engaging in ... dilatory behavior. Id. (internal quotations omitted). 60 Dismissal is a harsh sanction and therefore its use should be limited. See United States v. Golden Elevator, Inc., 27 F.3d 301, 303 (7th Cir.1994). This case, however, presents a situation where its use is appropriate. Dr. Ladien has urged this Court to reverse the dismissal of his lawsuit, arguing that the sanction was out of proportion. We might have agreed with Dr. Ladien if this were a situation where the district court had dismissed his case for a single act of violative conduct. However, as the record reveals, Dr. Ladien, on many occasions, abused the discovery process and violated the court's clearly articulated orders. Dr. Ladien's misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following: communicating directly with the court on two separate occasions--the second in direct violation of the court's order that he should not do so; failing to timely produce discoverable documents (i.e., the grievance hearing tapes); inaccurately verifying that his document production was complete and thereafter using undisclosed documents as exhibits in a deposition; improperly threatening to bring criminal charges against defendants if his settlement demands were not met; and attempting to directly contact individual defendants in violation of the court's order. Cumulatively these acts of misconduct warranted the dismissal of his case. 61 It is painfully apparent that throughout the course of this case the district judge bent over backwards to avoid imposing the ultimate litigation sanction. He repeatedly cautioned Dr. Ladien that his conduct was inappropriate and that it was coming dangerously close to warranting dismissal. Nevertheless, Dr. Ladien seemed compelled to abuse the discovery process and ignore the court's orders. The district court's response was not disproportionate to Dr. Ladien's conduct. See Golden Elevator, Inc., 27 F.3d at 303. The district judge was exceedingly patient with Dr. Ladien and, in fact, would have been justified in acting earlier to end the case. 6 62 There was no abuse of discretion and the dismissal is AFFIRMED.