Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc.

    896 F.2d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 70 times
    Concluding that "clear misrepresentation" constitutes "failure to respond"

    In a Memorandum Opinion of December 17, 1987, the district court held that a discovery violation had occurred and that sanctions should be imposed. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437, 6 USPQ2d 1633 (E.D.Mich. 1987). The court denied the motion to dismiss and took the amount of monetary sanctions under consideration.

  2. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc.

    125 F.R.D. 445 (E.D. Mich. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    In my Memorandum Opinion of December 17, 1987, I held that under Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, sanctions should be imposed against plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437 (E.D.Mich.1987). I denied the motion to dismiss.

  3. Ferrer v. Detroit Club Mgmt. Corp.

    22-cv-11427 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2024)

    . Jackson v. Nissan Motor Corp., No. 88-6132, 1989 WL 128639, at *5 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing Badalamenti v Dunhan's Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 118 F.RD. 437, 439 (E.D. Mich. 1987)) (explaining that “[t]he rational for allowing sanctions without contempt of a prior court order is that an injured party may be unaware that key discovery information has been withheld and, therefore, may not seek an order to compel discovery”).

  4. Laukus v. Rio Brands, Inc.

    CASE NO. 5:07CV2331 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 11, 2013)   Cited 47 times
    Recognizing that "[t]he analysis under Rule 16(f) and Rule 37(b) is the same"

    While plaintiff argues that Rule 37(d) is reserved for a total failure to respond to properly propounded discovery requests, the "majority view authorizes Rule 37(d) sanctions when a party's 'evasive or incomplete answers to proper interrogatories impede discovery.'" Jackson v. Nissan Motor Corp., No. 88-6132, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 16348, at *14 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Badalamenti v. Dunham's Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437, 439 (E.D. Mich. 1987)); Airtex Corp. v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 155 (7th Cir. 1976) ("when, as here, the fact that answers to interrogatories are evasive or incomplete answers are tantamount to no answer at all . . . Rule 37(d) is applicable"); Bell v. Automotive Club of Michigan, 80 F.R.D. 228, 232 (E.D. Mich. 1978). In addition to this rule-based authority, federal courts have the inherent power to impose sanctions to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

  5. John v. Goetz

    NO. 3:98-0168 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2010)   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that "[d]eleted information in a party's computer's backup tapes is as discoverable as electronic documents in current use," though simultaneously observing that these emails may in fact be presently maintained "as replicant data, archival data or residual data"

    The Sixth Circuit has stated: "'[E]vasive or incomplete answers to proper interrogatories impede discovery.' Badalamenti v. Dunham's Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437, 439 (E.D. Mich. 1987) (citingBell v. Automobile Club of Michigan, 80 F.R.D. 228, 232 (E.D. Mich. 1978) (misleading interrogatory answers tantamount to failure to answer interrogatories))." See also Jackson v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA, 888 F.2d 1391, 1989 WL 128639, No. 88-6132 at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 1989).

  6. POWERHOUSE MARKS, L.L.C. v. CHI HSIN IMPEX, INC.

    Civil Action No. 04-CV-73923-DT (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    In Jackson v. Nissan Motor Corp., 888 F.2d 1391 (6th Cir. 1989) (unpublished), the court held that "the majority view authorizes Rule 37(d) sanctions when a party's 'evasive or incomplete answers to proper interrogatories impede discovery.'" Jackson, 888 F.2d at 1391 (citing Badalamenti v. Dunham's Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437, 439 (E.D. Mich. 1987); Bell v. Automotive Club of Michigan, 80 F.R.D. 228, 232 (1978); Airtex Corp. V. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 155 (7th Cir. 1976)). Additionally, "[a] district court has the inherent power to sanction a party when that party exhibits bad faith, including the party's refusal to comply with the court's orders."

  7. POWERHOUSE MARKS v. CHI HSIN IMPEX, INC.

    Civil Action No. 04-CV-73923-DT (E.D. Mich. Nov. 15, 2005)

    In Jackson v. Nissan Motor Corp., 888 F.2d 1391 (6th Cir. 1989) (unpublished), the court held that "the majority view authorizes Rule 37(d) sanctions when a party's 'evasive or incomplete answers to proper interrogatories impede discovery.'" Jackson, 888 F.2d at 1391 (citing Badalamenti v. Dunham's Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437, 439 (E.D. Mich. 1987); Bell v. Automotive Club of Michigan, 80 F.R.D. 228, 232 (1978); Airtex Corp. V. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 155 (7th Cir. 1976)). Additionally, "[a] district court has the inherent power to sanction a party when that party exhibits bad faith, including the party's refusal to comply with the court's orders."

  8. Jackson v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A

    121 F.R.D. 311 (M.D. Tenn. 1988)   Cited 7 times
    Dismissing product liability case under Rule 37 where plaintiff's counsel "failed to take simple, reasonable steps to secure the most important piece of evidence in the case," the subject vehicle

    The rationale of these cases is that it is senseless to require a court order to secure compliance when an injured party may not know until after the fact that anything has been withheld. SeeBadalamenti v. Dunhams, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437, 439 (E.D.Mich.1987); cf.Davis, 528 F.2d at 404 (when defendant did not refuse to answer interrogatory but gave evasive response, plaintiff could not have known that a motion to compel would be appropriate).          Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rule 37(d) observe that, notwithstanding the harsh sanctions permitted by the Rule, courts generally have interpreted it as allowing for more lenient penalties. Courts in our circuit that have addressed the issue run true to this pattern, shying away from dismissal and favoring imposition of attorneys' fees instead.

  9. Patrick v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (In re Patrick)

    CASE NO. 13-61661 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Dec. 22, 2014)   Cited 4 times

    Rule 37(b) is only applicable after a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery. Thomas v. Victoria's Secret Stores, 141 F.R.D. 456, 458-59 (S.D. Ohio 1992); Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 437, 439 (E.D. Mich. 1987). The only discovery order in the current case is the scheduling order.