|
S8lV1c05 Ol�M@8ti Data Central, Inc,
<br /> PAGE 4
<br /> E a 1991 U.S, App. LEXIS 30233, x5 N
<br /> ,, t
<br /> ii As a general proposition, when a trial court disposes finally of a case, any
<br /> interlocutory rulings merge' with the final judgment. Thus both the order
<br /> finally disposing of the case and the interlocutory orders are reviewable on i
<br /> ' appeal, Some courts have carved out an exception: if the final order is a
<br /> dismissal resulting from bad faith or dilatory conduct, then the interlocutory
<br /> drders do not ',merge' and do not become reviewable. nZ To hold otherwise
<br /> rou3d
<br /> open up a back!'door route to review of interlocutory orders and would reward had:
<br /> ionduct:. t
<br /> - - - - - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ -Footnotes- ..
<br /> n2 DuBose v, Minnesota, 893 F.2d 169 (8th Cir. 1990) # Sere v, Univ, ofd
<br /> 1.1linois, 85Z F.2d 2857 288 17th Cir, 19881 ; Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.Zd 493', 497
<br /> (9th Cir, 1980 , cert, denied 470 L#.S, i007 (1985) ; Harsh' all v. Sie .aff 92
<br /> F�Zd 917, 919 (3rd Cir.: 19741 .
<br /> 5 r
<br /> End ootnote5
<br /> The Government argues that that is the case here,. And it is true that the.
<br /> trial judge in lHendler II characterized plaintiffs ' responses a5 indicating 046a.tt� ,
<br /> fe . The record is devoid, however, of any factual underpinning far that
<br /> characterization beyond the apparent conclusion that in the court's judgment
<br /> plaintiffs should have had more to tell. But failure to set forth in disco% very
<br /> facts sufficient to establish a cause of action is not Proof of bad faith4 and.
<br /> is not a basis for a Rule 37 sanction. n3 Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v�. limited
<br /> . States, :857 F, 2d '14413 14.51 (Fed. Cir, 1988) . r
<br /> -Footnotes- - - - - -
<br /> n3 Rule 37 of the U.S, Claims Court is identical to Rule 37 of the Federal �
<br /> Rules of Civil lrocetiure.. Tfietrial. court in Hendler II dismissed the cast under
<br /> 3�(b) (2) : If a panty. , , fails to obey an order to provide or permit discover+ j.
<br /> the court may make such orders in regard to the failure as are dust and
<br /> among others the following: . . , (CI An order , di5missihq the ac.:1an or
<br /> proceeding or ahV part thereof , .
<br /> -End Footnote5- _
<br /> C 1F73
<br /> 4
<br /> F
<br /> Furthier, thii trial. , udg in Hendle'r I T necessarily viewed dla nt ffs nswers
<br /> tp the interrrigattrries in the light of the issues re. a nfnq before 11irtt, ;SiC1cE w9
<br /> arse of the vio* that those :issues had been 'skewed by lerroneClus rutin in..
<br /> Handler I, this; case is.. not ane in which plaintiffs acted wron'dl.y, but rattler
<br /> ore in which error's of taw led to an erroneous dismissal, N0 461e 37 sanction is.
<br /> appropriateihen a litigant's failure is not the result of trad. faith or
<br /> 4115conduct, Societe inti Y. ROgerS, 357 U.S. 1.9.7, R
<br /> i) When errflrs of taw in the und&lyinq orders sent the trial court down the s
<br /> wron.q path, caur ts. have reviewed the merits of the underly n.4 decisions . 5 well
<br /> as; the final dismissal sanction. For example, in Fami3las U. as v. :8riscpel 544.
<br /> C 18:2 (5th Cl: r. 1976 ;, the trial court dismissed the plaint:i.ffs after :their )
<br /> ri sed to answer fnterrr ga;torie5; seelrinq to establish the identities o a '
<br /> �
<br /> LiE
<br /> .. NEXIS
<br /> I
<br />
|