(DOWNLOAD) "Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute" by United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Release Date : January 22, 1990
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
Per Curiam May 15, 1990, we affirmed in part and reversed in part orders entered by the District Court for the Northern District
of New York (Neal P. McCurn, C. J.). Familiarity with our earlier opinion is presumed. Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
et al., No. 89-7413 (2d Cir. May 15, 1990). Our reversal of Judge McCurn's ultimate dismissal of this action as a sanction
revolved around a conference held on June 4, 1986. At that conference, the district judge attempted to fashion a discovery
schedule. He ordered Bobal to appear for her scheduled deposition. In response, she stated that she would not appear and then
left the courtroom. Bobal candidly admitted that she violated the court order but attempted to justify her conduct because
she "concluded that the order would irreparably prejudice her case." We reviewed the dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d), which addresses a party's failure to appear for her deposition.
The imposition of sanctions under that rule "is within the discretion of the district court and a decision to dismiss an action
for failure to comply with discovery orders will only be reversed if the decision constitutes an abuse of that discretion."
John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc., 845 F.2d 1172, 1176 (2d Cir. 1988). From a review of the appendices
filed by both parties, it appeared that Judge McCurn had not warned Bobal that a violation of his order would result in the
harsh sanction of dismissal. Cf. Schenck v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 583 F.2d 58, 59 (2d Cir. 1978) (reversing district court's
dismissal for failure to prosecute, noting that "there had been no . . . judicial participation indicating that a dismissal
might be in the offing."). At the argument of this appeal and in response to a question from the court, counsel for appellees
stated that Judge McCurn had not warned this pro se plaintiff that a dismissal might result from a violation of his order.
Although appellant made use of her opportunity for rebuttal, she did not dispute appellees' response.