Monika Salata v. Weyerhaeuser Company
757 F.3d 695
7th Cir.2014Background
- Salata slipped and fell on Weyerhaeuser property in 2008 and sued in 2010 for personal injuries and damages; the case was removed to federal court.
- Salata changed counsel; new counsel Elrabadi was granted extensions but repeatedly failed to timely supplement discovery responses to two sets of interrogatories and to produce medical records, tax returns, and other documents.
- Weyerhaeuser repeatedly emailed counsel, filed a Motion to Compel after roughly ten months of outstanding discovery, and the district court ordered supplementation by January 2, 2013.
- Salata failed to comply with that court order and Elrabadi failed to appear at status hearings; Weyerhaeuser moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and 41(b).
- The district court dismissed the case with prejudice for want of prosecution; Salata moved to reinstate, the court denied the motion as untimely (discovery too late), and Salata appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal and denial of reinstatement, but declined to award appellate sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion | Salata (through counsel) argued dismissal was improper because she had complied or was in the process of complying with discovery and did not receive notice of hearings | Weyerhaeuser argued Salata repeatedly failed to supplement discovery, ignored court orders, and counsel failed to monitor CM/ECF notifications | Affirmed: dismissal was not an abuse of discretion given prolonged, court-ordered discovery violations and counsel’s failures |
| Whether the late supplemental discovery cured the violations and warranted reinstatement | Salata argued belated supplementation (after dismissal) showed compliance and supported reinstatement | Weyerhaeuser argued the late and inconsistent disclosures came too late and opened new issues, making reinstatement impracticable | Held: denial of reinstatement affirmed — discovery was too late and prejudice to the defense existed |
| Whether counsel’s claimed lack of notice excused failures to appear | Salata contended counsel did not receive notices of hearings and motions | Weyerhaeuser pointed to counsel’s CM/ECF registration and rule requiring maintenance of a current email address | Held: counsel’s asserted lack of notice was negligent and not excusable neglect; CM/ECF service sufficed |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous warranting Rule 38 sanctions | Salata maintained the appeal had merit | Weyerhaeuser sought fees under Rule 38 for a frivolous appeal | Held: appeal not sanctioned — record did not show bad faith or that appeal was prosecuted solely to harass or delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissal)
- Roland v. Salem Contract Carriers, Inc., 811 F.2d 1175 (7th Cir. 1987) (upholding dismissal for ongoing discovery violations)
- Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2006) (failure to appear and to disclose documents supports dismissal)
- Martinez v. City of Chicago, 499 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2007) (pattern of delay by counsel supports dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Norgaard v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 121 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 1997) (ignorance of CM/ECF service does not excuse neglect)
- Hill v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987) (standards for imposing appellate sanctions under Rule 38)