In Lee v. Max Intern., LLC, 2011 WL 1651640 (10^th Cir. 2011), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a United States District Court did not err in dismissing a Plaintiff's case for repeated failures to produce responsive documents. 

In Lee, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for breach of contract and the Defendant issued a set of discovery requests.  The Plaintiff produced some documents, but not all, and the Defendant filed a motion to compel.  The Court granted the motion to compel, ordering production of a variety of documents, yet Plaintiff still produced only a small amount of additional records.  The Defendant subsequently filed a motion for sanctions seeking dismissal of the case. Despite finding that the Plaintiff blatantly and without apparent excuse flouted the Court's prior order, the Court denied the sanction and gave Plaintiff one last opportunity to produce the requested documents until February 26, 2010.  On January 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a certification that all documents had been produced, however the Defendant still identified missing documents.  The Defendant renewed its motion for sanctions, and the Plaintiff produced additional records on two subsequent days.  The District Court, upon finding that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the original request for production and failed to obey two subsequent court orders, dismissed the action as a sanction for discovery misconduct. 

The appeals court noted that District Courts enjoy "very broad discretion to use sanctions where necessary to insure that lawyers and parties fulfill their high duty to insure the expeditious and sound management of the preparation for cases for trial."  Id. at 2.  Recognizing that "[d]iscovery disputes are, for better or worse, the daily bread of magistrate and district judges in the age of the disappearing trial," the Court deferred largely to the District Court's findings based on its interaction with the parties and not just a "cold record to review."  Id.  The Court found that "a party's thrice repeated failure to produce materials that have always been and remain within its control is strong evidence of willfulness and bad faith, and in any event is easily fault enough . . . to warrant dismissal or default judgment."  Id.  The Court openly criticized the Plaintiff for playing a discovery shell game "where the hidden ball is moved round and round and only revealed after so many false guesses are made and so much money is squandered."  Id.  Noting that the District Court could have allowed the case to proceed despite repeated noncompliance, the Court held that the District did not err in dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for violating discovery orders. 

For a full copy of the opinion, click here.