Lee v. Max Intern., LLC
638 F.3d 1318
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Markyl Lee and PTK failed to produce documents in response to Max's requests and subsequent orders.
- Max sought sanctions, culminating in a district court dismissal as a sanction under Rule 37 for continued noncompliance.
- Magistrate judge found the plaintiffs violated both October 2009 and January 2010 orders, despite warnings.
- Plaintiffs eventually produced some materials after further motions; one key violation involved tax returns not produced until after a false declaration.
- District court dismissed the case with prejudice; plaintiffs appealed, arguing lack of clear Ehrenhaus analysis and factual error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two missed orders justifies dismissal | Lee/PTK complied with at least one order in Jan 2010 argument. | Max contends two orders were violated and dismissal appropriate. | Yes; dismissal upheld for repeated nonproduction under two orders. |
| Whether false declaration about production defeats compliance | Declaration should be considered compliant since later production occurred. | Declaration under penalty of perjury was false and fatal to compliance. | Yes; false sworn declaration violated January 2010 order and supported sanctions. |
| Ehrenhaus factors mandatory on review | District court must explicitly analyze Ehrenhaus factors. | Factors are nonexclusive and not required in every case if record supports discretion. | Nonmandatory; independent review of record upheld dismissal despite lack of detailed Ehrenhaus discussion. |
| Standard of appellate review for sanctions | Appeal should reweigh discretionary rulings against plaintiffs. | Court reviews for abuse of discretion; here the record supports sanction. | Abuse of discretion not shown; record supports sanctions. |
| Whether three opportunities to comply were sufficient | Three chances are not automatically dismissal-worthy. | Three failures demonstrate willfulness/bad faith justifying dismissal. | Yes; three strikes and persistent noncompliance warranted dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 F.3d 639 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (district courts must administer discovery sanctions diligently)
- In re Baker, 744 F.2d 1438 (10th Cir. 1984) (extensive discretion to sanction to ensure expeditious management)
- Archibeque v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 70 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 1995) (sanction must be based on willfulness, bad faith, or fault)
- Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (factors are nonexclusive guideposts for sanctions analysis)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005) (independent review may suffice even if Ehrenhaus factors undeveloped)
- Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (courts may affirm sanctions based on the record without Ehrenhaus factors)
- Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizes independent record-based review of sanctions)
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1980) (Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently)