Telluride Management Solutions, Inc. v. Telluride Investment Group

Good Law
55 F.3d 463
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 19, 1995No. 93-56161California2,269 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beezer, J.

Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge NOONAN.

In the context of a dispute oyer the imposition of sanctions for discovery violations, we consider the question whether a party is substantially justified in failing to appear for a deposition when the complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend. We also address whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes sanctions for a motion for reconsideration of a sanction order.

*465 John Steel and Robert Korn (collectively “Steel”), former attorneys of the defendants in the underlying suit, Telluride Investment Group and Thurston Beadle (collectively “Beadle”), appeal sanctions imposed for discovery rule violations. Steel contends that the imposition of sanctions for failure to appear at a deposition after the complaint had been dismissed was an abuse of discretion. He also challenges the additional sanction imposed for filing a motion for reconsideration of the award.

We find the action was still pending after the dismissal of the complaint and therefore conclude that the imposition of discovery sanctions for failure to appear at a deposition was not an abuse of discretion. Because we also…

Concurrence in Part

Noonan, J.

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

This case reflects the uncivil state to which civil litigation sometimes today descends. Aware that their own complaint had been dismissed and that they had filed no amended complaint, the plaintiffs counsel insisted that defendants’ counsel attend a scheduled deposition at a ski resort in Colorado. Now plaintiffs counsel have successfully sought sanctions for their adversaries’ failing to appear. I do not believe we should reward these ungenerous lawyers; nor — although it is a question that could go either way — do I believe that the district court had jurisdiction to enforce its discovery order when the complaint had been dismissed and no amended complaint had been filed.

I concur in reversing the award of additional sanctions for the motion for reconsideration.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.