Computer Task Group, Inc vs Brotby Essay

In 1995 William Brotby was hired by Computer Task Group, Inc. (CTG) as an selective information technologies consultant. Upon hiring, Brotby had to subscribe an agreement stating that he would be restricted to drop dead for any CTG customers if he left the company. No more than two years later, Brotby left CTG and began to work for one of CTGs customers known as Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. CTG, plaintiff, filed a suit against Brotby, defendant, in a federal dominion administration alleging give of contract.During the production of discovery, Brotby refused to fully respond to CTGs interrogatories, never gave truthful answers, filed excessive motions, made flimsy objections, and never disclosed all of the information that CTG sought. Brotby was fined in two ways by the court and was issued five separate orders ordering him to cooperate. Because of Brothbys unremitting refusal to cooperate, CTG eventually filed a motion to enter fail ruling against him in 1999. The co urt granted the motion however, Brotby appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Is continuous refusal of the defendant to produce discovery enough to warrant a evasion judgment by a federal regularize court? The federal district court granted CTGs motion to enter a fail judgment. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the unhorse court. Therefore, the appellate court held that in light of Brotbys horrible record of discovery abuses and his abiding contempt and continuing disregard for the courts orders, the lower court properly exercised its discretion in entering a default judgment against the defendant.The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows the district court to enter a default judgment against a ships company who fails to comply with an order demanding discovery. In addition, the district court must contract five factors in order to allowly decide if a O.K. of default for noncompliance with discovery is ground s for dismissal.These five factors are (1) the worldly concerns interest in expeditious resolution of litigation (2) the courts need to manage its ocket (3) the risk of prejudice to the opposing fellowship (4) the public policy estimationing disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. When a court order is violated, the first and second factors will favor sanctions whereas the fourth will challenge the order. With regards to the first factor, Brotbys actions were deliberate he intended his actions to be as they were. Moreover, in determining whether abolishing sanctions are appropriate in Brotbys case is reliant on the third and fifth part factors.Brotby violated court orders by failing to produce sufficient and actual documents, and by failing to pay one of the fines. These deceitful tactics decelerate the litigation process while burdening the court, and prejudiced CTG. Brotby failed to produce documents ordered by the court, and m ost of what he did submit came after discovery. The withholding of important information and the time delay is sufficient prejudice towards CTG.There are triad factors considered in deciding whether the district court adequately considered lesser sanctions (1) explicitly discussed the alternative of lesser sanctions and explained why it would be inappropriate (2) implemented lesser sanctions before ordering the case dismissed and (3) warned the offending party of the surmisal of dismissal. The district court judge appropriately considered the alternative of lesser sanctions by ordering Brotby to comply with CTGs discovery request five times and imposing two lesser sanctions against him.However, Brotby never responded and therefore it is appropriate to banish lesser sanctions if the court anticipates continuous false misconduct. Brotby also had continuous sense that his unwillingness to cooperate would eventually end in a default judgment against him the judge warned him to st op playing games if he wanted to hold up in the game. Therefore, the two monetary sanctions, five orders ordering him to cooperate, and repeated warnings proved enough notice that Brotbys continued failure to comply would result in default.