Dolores Comstock v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc., 775 F.3d 990

Background

Feb 2011 nighttime car accident: William Gumby sued Allen Howard and UPS; defense sought Gumby’s pre-accident medical records and related witness identities.
Gumby initially disclosed only one physician and one hospital; he later died and Dolores Comstock, his daughter and estate administrator, was substituted as plaintiff.
Nearly a year into discovery, Comstock (and counsel Jessica Virden) belatedly produced thousands of pages, including previously undisclosed records showing vision problems, dizziness, hallucinations, prior instructions not to drive at night, and hospitalization hours before the accident.
The district court found additional discovery abuses: implausible denials of knowledge about Gumby’s health, failure to produce an expert’s test results, and violation of a court order to complete production by Sept. 28, 2012.
The court concluded the violations were intentional, caused extreme prejudice to UPS (e.g., impairing depositions that could not be retaken), and dismissed Comstock’s suit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2).
Comstock appealed, arguing the court should have considered lesser sanctions and that dismissal unfairly harmed non-parties (estate creditors/beneficiaries).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2) was permissible for discovery violations	Comstock: court should have considered lesser sanctions; dismissal disproportionate and harms non-parties	UPS: violations were intentional, prejudicial, and dismissal is an authorized sanction under Rule 37	Court: Dismissal permissible; no abuse of discretion where violation was intentional and prejudicial; consideration of lesser sanctions not required for deliberate misconduct
Whether the court erred by not articulating rejection of lesser sanctions	Comstock: relied on Shepherd to require express consideration of lesser sanctions	UPS: Shepherd governs inherent-authority dismissals, not Rule 37; intentional violation removes need to explore lesser sanctions	Court: Shepherd does not control Rule 37 dismissals; prior Eighth Circuit law permits dismissal without exploring lesser sanctions for deliberate violations
Whether prejudice to defendant was curable	Comstock: prejudice could have been ameliorated; dismissal unnecessary	UPS: late production prevented meaningful discovery (e.g., lost opportunity to depose decedent)	Court: Prejudice shown and not disputed by Comstock; dismissal available and appropriate
Whether secondary effects on non-parties require different sanction analysis	Comstock: dismissal unfairly denies estate creditors/beneficiaries recovery	UPS: no authority that court must weigh secondary effects on non-parties	Court: No rule requires consideration of non-party consequences; absence of such authority means no abuse in dismissing

Key Cases Cited

Bergstrom v. Frascone, 744 F.3d 571 (8th Cir.) (standards for reviewing Rule 37 dismissals and deliberate-violation rule)
Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818 (8th Cir.) (elements for dismissal under Rule 37)
Avionic Co. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 957 F.2d 555 (8th Cir.) (court may dismiss for deliberate discovery violations without first exploring lesser sanctions)
Martin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 251 F.3d 691 (8th Cir.) (affirming dismissal for perjurious nondisclosure in discovery)
Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 186 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir.) (upholding default judgment for non-production and false denials)
Nat’l Liberty Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 120 F.3d 913 (8th Cir.) (relevance of lost opportunity to retake depositions as prejudice)
ACLU of Minn. v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Acad., 643 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir.) (examples of prejudice accruing after discovery failures)
Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 62 F.3d 1469 (D.C. Cir.) (rule requiring articulation of reasons for rejecting lesser sanctions under a court's inherent authority)
Givens v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 751 F.2d 261 (8th Cir.) (caution that not every discovery failure warrants total extinction of a claim)