Laserfiche WebLink
Seruices of Mead Data Central, tnQ <br /> Qt <br /> PAGE <br /> a 1991 U.S. App, LEXIS 30233, *5 a <br /> As a gene ral'ipreposition, when a trial court disposes finally of a case, err} <br /> is interlocutory rulings 1amerge' with the; final: judgment. Thus both the order! <br /> finally disposing of the case and the interlocutory orders are reviewable on <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 />(. orders do not 'merge' and do; not, become reviewable. n2 To hold otherwise would <br /> `aper(,uP a tACk door route to review of interlocutory orders and: Mould reward (tad <br /> conduct.. <br /> E <br /> , . <br /> ` m _ Footnotes- <br /> } n . <br /> } n 17uBose v. Mlnnesnta, 893 F,Zd t69 (8th Cir. 199(71 ; dere v 1lniv. of <br /> 1110.015, 852 F.Zd 2857 286 ('7t# Cir. 1988) ; Ash v. CVttkav, 739 Fad 4,91f4-97 <br /> MMCV. t9843 ;i cewt, denied 470 U.S. ,1(]07 (1985) ; Marshall, v. Sielaff, 442 <br /> f.: :d°917 949 19, 74) . <br /> nd Footnotes <br /> The Government iarques that brat is the case here. And :it It true hat the <br /> trim judge in Hendler 11charstterized plaintiffs ' tespottses as ind>itatinh bad <br /> faith. The record is devoid, however, of any factual urtderpinn ng for that <br /> characterisation beyond the apparent conclusion that:. in the court's ;7udgMent <br /> Plaintiffs should have :had more; to tell. But failure to set. forth in discovery <br /> facts sufficient to establish a' cause of action is not proof of: bad faith,, and: <br /> is -Inst a basic; for a tte 37 sa etion. n3 Ingalls Shipbuilding,: Inc. v. United <br /> SfiataS, 8.57 F. 2d 1448.E 1451 (Fedi Cit`.: 1988) . �r <br /> -Footnotes- <br /> in3 Rule 37 of the U.S. Claim`'s Court is identical to Rule 37 of the Federal <br /> ttules of Civil Procedure. The trial court in Hendler _iI dismissed the case under <br /> 3701MI. If a party . . faiil to obey an order to provide or permit discovery <br /> the court may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and <br /> ambnq others the f allowirtq: ,1 . (C) An order dismissing the action, or <br /> proceeding, or any part thereof <br /> 1 <br /> -End FoCrtnotes- - - - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ <br /> ;Further, the trial Nudge in Hendler II necessarily viewed plaintiffs' answers <br /> to; the interrogatories in the 1F qht of the issues re maininq before his. Since we <br /> are of the view that those issui5 had been skewed by erroneous rulings in , <br /> Hendler I, this case is not one' in whish plaintiffs acted wrongly,. but rather <br /> one in which errors of law led to an erroneous dismissal. No Rule 37 sanction is <br /> appropriate when; a: .litigant's failure is not the result of bad faith or <br /> misconduct. Societe Inf'l .v. Rogers, MP U.S. 197, <br /> a <br /> 21:2 t 1 95,8.1.: <br /> When errors of law in the un`derlyinq orders seat the trial court dowrt the <br /> wrbnq ;path, courts have reviewed the merits of the underlying decisions., as: Wtl <br /> as It7h final: disc ssal sanction For example, in Familial Un Was. v. Briscae, 544 +. <br /> F .2d '182 (5th Cir 1976), the 61al court dismissed the plain .. ffs after tfrey <br /> fefused to answer istterrngatora s seekfnq to establish the identities dtf <br /> a <br /> LEXIS iWEk. . iS L <br /> 3 5 <br />