◆ SpookStack

The pertinent facts relating to the issue of the imposition of sanctions under Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, are set forth in the argu- ‘s+ *$HTS COURT, IN REQUIRING THE DISTRICT COURT, ON REMAND, TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL, IMPROPERLY OVERRULED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED’ BECAUSE — -' “THE FEDERAL DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL COMPLIED WITH ITS ORDERS RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS’ __.. : In ruling on the plaintiffs' motions for. sanctions against the federal defendants, their counsel, and Special Agent in Charge Hela for alleged failures to comply with its — discovery orders, the district court applied the appropriate . Standard in considering whether the conduct of the federal defendants and their gounsel merited the imposition of sanctici on april 15, 1977, the court stated, in part: wes ; P oa at te . . a 7 pe cal ~ wh, oy ; in at et ‘ = e e-» The Court finds that the defendants Marlin W. zo ee @Johnson, Robert T. Piper and Roy Mitchell, and the mS ; = attorneys for the federal defendants, Edward Christenbury, Arnold Kanter and Alexandra Kwoka, and Richard G. Held, . . Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, did at all times carry out the orders of this Court to -the best of their abilities and that there is no reason for them or any of them to show cause why -ganctions should not be imposed upon them. It is, therefore, ordered that all of the motions and petitions for sanctions against any of the aforesaid individuals be and they are hereby denied, and, further, that each and every one of the individuals be and they are hereby exonerated from all of the - “do. “]/ Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958). : . In reviewing motions filed and orders entered pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal 7a. .. Rules of Civil Procedure, courts have held conduct such as “continuous, fla- grant and wilful disregard of the rules of discovery," "deliberately ignoring court orders," "wilful failure to comply," "intentional noncompliance with — discovery orders," "evasive and uncooperative," “persistent and wilful," and "a@efiance" to be the standard used when applying sanctions for failure to comply with court orders, even though the Rule does not contain such language. Margoles v. Johns, 587 F.2d 885 (7th Cir. 1978); Campbell v. Johnson, 101 F.Supp. 705 (1951); Kozlowski v. Sears Roebuck 71 F.R.D. 594 (1976); United States v. Weatherspoon, 581 F.2d 595 (7th Cir. 1978); Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1962); Hunter v. International Systems, 56 F.R.D. 617 (1972). -2- | w dd bb da Tb ad dd bb . toa fake |