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

Add to Library




Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Civil Procedure Keyed to Marcus

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 602 F.2d 1062, 1979 U.S. App. 1979-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P62,778; 27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 828

Brief Fact Summary. Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corporation (Appellee) operated a movie theatre in New York City. Appellee failed to comply with numerous court orders regarding the answering of Allied Artists Pictures Corporations (Appellants) interrogatories on the issue of damages.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A grossly negligent failure to obey a court order compelling discovery is sufficient to substantiate severe disciplinary measures under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Facts. Appellee alleges that Appellants, who owned neighboring theatres, attempted to prevent the opening of its theatre. When this proved to be unsuccessful, Appellee alleged that Appellants entered into a conspiracy with certain motion picture distributors to eliminate its access to quality films. Appellee claimed $3,000,000 in treble damages under antitrust laws and sought an injunction against the Appellants’ alleged antitrust practices. Appellants then served Appellee with consolidated interrogatories. Appellee secured Appellants’ consent to defer discovery on a crucial issue of damages until it could retain an expert to review Appellants’ box office receipts. Appellee filed a set of answers, which were bare and ambiguous. Appellee filed supplemental answers, which failed to obey two subsequent orders from the magistrate, compelling discovery. Magistrate Gershon found the Appellee’s disobedience to be willful and recommended that $500 in costs be assessed against it. Months later, the Appellee still had not acquired an expert and the magistrate ordered the Appellee to file an answer. When Appellee filed answers, both were deficient. The magistrate reserved on the imposition of sanctions. The Appellants moved for dismissal of the complaint on grounds that Appellee’s failure to obey the order requiring answers on the issue of damages. The Magistrate Gershon found that Appellee had no basis for assuming that the answers were not due on the dates set in the orders. Magistrate Gershon also concluded that Appellee’s noncompliance was willful. The magistrate’s decision was submitted to the district court for approval. The district court judge then found that it might have been “possible that Appellee’s counsel could have thought in good faith that the answers were not due.” The court stated that it lacked the power to find willfulness to impose extreme sanctions and only assessed the costs in the amount of $1,000.

Issue. Whether a grossly negligent failure to obey a court order compelling discovery may justify the severest disciplinary measures?

See More Course Videos

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following