Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Pressey v. Patterson

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscovery sanctionsDefault judgmentPrejudgment interestRemittiturRule 37(b)inherent powerabuse of discretion

Facts

Pressey sued the City under section 1983, alleging among other things that the City failed to investigate officers with violent propensities. During discovery, disputes arose over the City's production of materials relating to the police internal affairs division, including two cassette tapes made by Sergeant Reiser of an interview with a newspaper reporter; Reiser later burned the tapes. The City initially represented that no tapes existed and suggested they had likely been reused, but later deposition testimony showed Reiser had destroyed them. The district court, citing abuse in the discovery process, struck the City's answer and entered default on liability.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by striking the City's answer and entering default judgment as a sanction for discovery misconduct? If so, what should happen to the damages award, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and Brasher's appeal?

Rule

Under Rule 37(b), the severest sanctions such as striking pleadings or dismissal ordinarily require a finding of bad faith or willful misconduct, and courts must consider whether a less drastic remedy would be better tailored to the misconduct. Sanctions under a federal court's inherent power are even more limited and are confined to bad faith or willful abuse of the judicial process under necessarily stringent standards. When liability and damages are sufficiently independent, an appellate court may order a new trial on liability alone while preserving nonexcessive damages findings.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal civil-rights suit in Dallas, plaintiff Nora Velasquez sought internal review files from the fictional Metro Plains Transit Authority. The authority repeatedly responded late and eventually admitted that an employee had thrown away handwritten notes after a records room cleanup, but the record showed no intent to suppress evidence and no violation of a specific order compelling those notes.

If the district court strikes the authority's answer and enters default solely because of this discovery misconduct, how should an appellate court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that striking pleadings or entering default is among the severest sanctions and usually requires bad faith or willful misconduct. It also emphasized that courts should consider whether a less drastic remedy would better fit the misconduct. Negligence, or even recklessness, may justify some sanction but not necessarily default on this record. (Derived from Pressey v. Patterson (n.d.).)