Opinion

Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Pension Fund v. Kelly

  • 974 F.2d 1330
  • 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 29696
  • 1992 WL 217438
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Sep 9, 1992
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.2%

The opinion

974 F.2d 1330

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Sheet Metal Workers National Pension

Fund; Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers National Cola

Fund; Board of Trustees, National Stabilization Agreement

of Sheet Metal Industry Trust Fund; Board of Trustees,

National Training Fund for the Sheet Metal and Air

Conditioning Industry; Board of Trustees, National Energy

Management Institute Committee; Board of Trustees, Sheet

Metal Occupational Health Institution Trust; Board of

Trustees, Florence Carlough Scholarship Fund, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Thomas L. KELLY, Defendant-Appellant,

and Waterbury Roofing Company, Incorporated, Defendant.

No. 91-2279.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 24, 1992

Decided: September 9, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-90-1251-A)

Thomas L. Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.

Debra Lynn Glickfeld, Marc LeBlanc, Sheet Metal Workers National Benefit Funds, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

Affirmed.

Before HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Thomas Kelly appeals the district court's order striking his pleadings and entering judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in this ERISA action. The district court's order was based on Kelly's repeated refusal to appear at a discovery deposition after warnings of the consequences of this course of action. Finding no error, we affirm.

2

If a party refuses to appear at a deposition or otherwise comply with discovery, the court may strike the party's pleadings, enter a default judgment against the party, and impose monetary sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). The court's entry of judgment against a party for failure to comply with discovery is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976). Entry of judgment against an uncooperative party is warranted if the party refused to comply with court orders and the opposing party is prejudiced as a result of the failure to cooperate. Snead v. Automation

3

Indus., Inc., 102 F.R.D. 823 (D. Md.), aff'd, No. 84-1048 (4th Cir. May 3, 1984) (unpublished).

4

In this case, the district court ordered Kelly to appear at a deposition and warned him that failure to comply with discovery could result in sanctions, including the striking of his pleadings and entry of judgment against him. Kelly failed to heed these warnings and repeatedly refused to be deposed. Further, the Plaintiffs were certainly biased by Kelly's refusal to be deposed, both in their inability to obtain crucial information for trial without deposing Kelly, and in the additional attorney's fees they incurred in attempting to gain Kelly's compliance with discovery. Finally, Kelly's refusal to be deposed was not based on any legally justifiable reason. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Kelly's pleadings and entering judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. *

5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

*

Kelly asserts in his informal brief that the district court ordered him to obtain counsel in contravention of his right of self-representation. Although Kelly is correct in asserting that he has a right to represent himself, 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (1988), his characterization of the district court's order is inaccurate. The district court merely advised Kelly that it would be in his interest to seek the advice of counsel. The court's entry of judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs was based not on Kelly's failure to obtain counsel, but on his failure to cooperate with discovery

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.