Content area
Full Text
I. INTRODUCTION
A core principle of the American legal philosophy is that disputes should be decided on their merits. However, attorneys often wrangle over legal procedure and deprive meritorious disputes of their day in court. At times, the discovery process reflects a battleground with little indicia of ethical advocacy.1 In Lee v. Max International, LLC,2 the Tenth Circuit correctly reproved an abusive litigant who was granted substantial leniency during the discovery process. The court sustained the most severe of sanctions - dismissal with prejudice.
This Note argues that the Tenth Circuit correctly affirmed the dismissal sanction provided under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and appropriately followed Supreme Court precedent. Those circuits that have not yet adopted the Supreme Court's framework should eliminate the inflexible tests they require of their district court judges in deciding dismissal sanction cases. The increased complexity and expense of discovery provides shameless attorneys with a system in which they often can test the resolve of the district courts and disregard their discovery obligations. The Tenth Circuit's opinion rightfully concluded that a district court should not be required to discuss a detailed set of factors while analyzing the appropriateness of a dismissal sanction. Any additional test would be superfluous within the current dismissal framework outlined by the Supreme Court.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The case began as many do: Markyl Lee filed a complaint alleging that Max International breached a distributorship agreement between the two parties.3 During the discovery process, Max made standard discovery requests with which Lee did not comply, and Max filed a motion to compel.4 The magistrate judge granted Max's motion and ordered that Lee produce "a variety of documents," but to no avail.5 In light of Lee's disregard of the court order, Max filed a request to dismiss the case. Fortunately for the plaintifF, the court granted Lee one additional opportunity to satisfy the court order by producing the requested documentation.6 The judge was clearly frustrated with Lee's disobethence and issued a warning that '"continued non-compliance [would] result in the harshest of sanctions.'"7
After the court's warning, Lee declared to the court that he had complied with the court order, even though he had only provided a few of the requested documents.8...