Dismissal for Failing to Respond to Discovery

[Federal]

My question involves court procedures for the state of: All jurisdictions

Will much change?

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/bigla...te/#more-70433

[Mr. Knowitall]

I doubt it. Such severe sanctions will occur only in extreme situations.

[Federal]

“If [attorneys] knew that decisions like this were likely or even possible, they would lean on their clients something awful to make sure their clients complied with discovery rules.”

"Except that decisions like this are handed down by the fistful against the District of Columbia, and yet it's attorneys still continue to one-up each other's frauds and mistakes."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/20...heard-of-.html

[Federal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbRn...eature=related

Thing is . . . Ya gotta be "civil" about these things.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85531

"Timeliness: There is no time limit on a collateral attack on a void judgment (other than possibly the equitable defense of laches): "A judgment void on its face . . . is subject to collateral attack at any time." [Rochin v. Pat Johnson Mfg. Co. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1239, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 719, 725--amended judgment entered without notice to plaintiff violated due process] Nor is there any time limit on a motion for relief under Ca Civ Pro § 473 where it is clear from the face of the record that the judgment should not have been entered: "(A) default that is void on the face of the record when entered is subject to challenge at any time irrespective of lack of diligence in seeking to set it aside within the six-month period of section 473." [Plotitsa v. Sup.Ct. (Kadri) (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 755, 761, 189 Cal.Rptr. 769, 772 (emphasis added)--Ca Civ Pro § 425.11 statement of damages not personally served on defendant]"

"A void judgment must be set aside regardless of the merits of the underlying case. Thus, for example, where there was never valid service of summons, the court cannot insist that defendant show a meritorious defense before setting aside the judgment: "Where a person has been deprived of property in a manner contrary to the most basic tenets of due process, it is no answer to say that in his particular case due process of law would have led to the same result because he had no adequate defense upon the merits." [Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988) 485 U.S. 80, 86-87, 108 S.Ct. 896, 900 (internal quotes omitted)]

"The result is different where the judgment is merely voidable because of "extrinsic fraud or mistake." In such cases, a meritorious defense must be shown."

This is a great movie, man.

I would advise all paralegals to watch it.

[Federal]

Oh my goodness!

A slippery slope!

"In a case involving tire tread separation, a District Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has imposed discovery sanctions against defendant Michelin North America, Inc. for its failure to timely and properly comply with its discovery obligations."

http://www.personalinjuryattorneycol...michelin.shtml
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/05/bigla...te/#more-70433

[cmre3456]

I would love it if it became law, even by precedent, that discovery violations resulted in dismissal in favor of the aggrieved party. Sure, there needs to be a motion and a second chance, but after that...

It's routine if a defendant fails to answer a complaint with either an answer or a motion, so why not?

[Federal]

I'm involved in a case where the Government's response to two court orders demanding production of statutorily required documents, has been, "We looked, but we couldn't find them."

The judge granted the Government "infinite delay" because Appellant was unable to show "willfulness".

Now, the Government wants summary judgment during the "infinite delay".

The judge very much wants to rule against the Appellant for failing to show willfulness on the part of the Government, so the Appellant appealed to a higher court.

The first judge is angry because Appellant didn't give him time to rule against the Appellant before Appellant appealed the "infinite delay shelter" provided by the judge for the Government.

The legal definition of "infinite delay" is: The day after never.

[Federal]

"Commission Affirms AJ’s Sanctions and Default Judgment Against Agency. In this matter, the Commission affirmed the AJ’s issuance of a Decision and Order on Default Judgment in favor of complainant. The AJ concluded that the agency failed to cooperate in the discovery process; failed to comply with Orders and directives of the AJ; failed to timely raise a challenge to complainant’s submissions; unduly delayed the hearing process; and failed to provide a good cause explanation for its actions. In affirming the AJ’s decision, the Commission found that the agency failed to comply with the AJ’s Acknowledgement and Order (A & O); made late and incomplete responses to the Orders issued by the AJ extending the discovery time limit and directing the agency to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed; and otherwise failed to honor its verbal commitments regarding discovery responses."

http://www.federalsoup.com/printer_f...s.asp?TID=3885

[Federal]

"The ACLU renewed its motion in February arguing that "high-level CIA officials knowingly flouted their obligations under FOIA and this Court's orders -- apparently with the specific intent of evading the public accountability that FOIA was enacted to ensure," according to the plaintiff's lawsuit."

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/08/01/cia.aclu.ruling/