Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 137

Klayman sued Judicial Watch, Inc., Fitton, Orfanedes, and Farrell in 2006 alleging contract, Lanham Act, and defamation claims arising after he left Judicial Watch in 2003.
The case has been repeatedly delayed by Klayman’s conduct, including dilatory discovery, late responses, and disregard for court orders.
Magistrate Judge Kay and the district court repeatedly sanctioned Klayman for discovery failures and obstruction, including monetary sanctions and preclusion of evidence.
The court's PSP Order (Oct. 20, 2009) required a joint pretrial statement with specific deadlines and objecting procedures, later extended, and warned of sanctions for noncompliance.
Klayman repeatedly failed to meet extended deadlines (June–July 2010) to amend and file the Joint Pretrial Statement; Defendants moved to strike portions of Klayman’s contribution, which the court granted on Aug. 10, 2011.
The sanction-strike/motion to preclude witnesses and exhibits was designed to address the persistent pattern of disobedience and to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sanctions to strike and preclude are warranted	Klayman argues sanctions are unwarranted	Defendants contend Klayman filed late and ignored orders, justifying sanctions	Yes; sanctions warranted given noncompliance and pattern of misconduct
Whether Klayman conceded the merits of the motion	Klayman did not meaningfully respond; implicitly contested	Klayman conceded the motion because opposition was rudimentary	Yes; deemed conceded for purposes of the motion
Whether the sanction is appropriately tailored to the misconduct	Sanctions less severe would suffice	Striking and preclusion directly address deficiencies and discourage recurrence	Yes; strike and preclusion are appropriate given six identified deficiencies and willful noncompliance
Whether the court's prior warnings and extensions were properly considered	Warnings were not given due effect	Warnings were explicit and extensions repeatedly denied further extensions	Yes; prior warnings and extended opportunities were considered but not complied with
Whether dismissal or default should follow the sanction	Sanctions stop short of dismissal	Severe sanction could lead to dismissal or default if noncompliance continues	Court finds sanction to strike and preclude appropriately positions toward potential dismissal if noncompliance persists

Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (courts may dismiss for failure to comply with pretrial orders; sanctions must deter misconduct)
Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1986) (drastic sanctions are permissible to deter misconduct)
Butera v. District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (dismissal or default sanctions require a careful, searching inquiry)
Smith v. Wash. Sheraton Corp., 135 F.3d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (effects of striking or excluding evidence in pretrial context)
Winmar, Inc. v. Al Jazeera Int’l, 741 F. Supp. 2d 165 (D.D.C. 2010) (pretrial conduct and civil procedure rules govern evidentiary readiness)