To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Lee v. Walters

Citation. 172 F.R.D. 421 (D. Or. 1997)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A), Rule 37(d), Rule 37(b), and Rule 26(g).

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Sanctions are proper against parties that defy the requirements of discovery without justification.


Vickie Lee and another individual (Plaintiffs) filed a motion to compel discovery and a motion for sanctions against Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A), Rule 37(b), Rule 37(d), and Rule 26(g). Plaintiffs argued that Defendants had failed to cooperate in scheduling depositions, appear for depositions, timely file an Answer, or timely and completely produce documents for discovery.


Are the Defendants subject to sanctions for failure to comply with the requirements of discovery?


Yes, Defendants are subject to sanctions for all instances where they failed to comply with discovery.


The Court rejected Defendants’ excuses and upheld sanctions under Rule 37(d), Rule 37(a)(4)(A), and Rule 37(b) for failure to appear for depositions, failure to respond to Plaintiff’s first document request, and failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery. Under each rule, Plaintiff demonstrated a sufficient attempt to reconcile outside of the court. The Court did not grant sanctions under Rule 26(g) because the Defendants had not yet filed a response to discovery.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following