SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Services of Mead Data Central, Ino. PAGt Z2 ' 1991 tJ S. app. LEXIS 30233, *54 the :;attorneys, and the histo:ry� of this case[.l," Hendler II at 31 , but this conclusion is based on, an erroneous over-emphasis on the importance of economic valuation in takings jurisprudence, and little else We do not condone the plaintiffs ' unseemly delay in responding to the January 9987 order,. but. the i dismissal was: riot based on their failure to submit a timely response,, rather it was based on the alleged inageiquacy of the response. Had the case net g ne off on the wrong footin the cantroverty over the d1.4c -V orders Uould never have arisen. This was nait entirely the judge+s ' do%ng. The Gave rnment at trialIjAnd in its brief and in argument before this cburt. showed :a remarkable inability to comprehend the fundamental er diffence et bween a takings clva�m based an a regulatory taking theory and one based on physical. occupation. Ft�r example, the Government's brief [05. ] an appeal.. Oath counsel far the Mnited Mates and the Claims Court 'believed that the facts. requested were essential to the plaintiffs" claims, and therefore to the ga�rernmerrtis defense.'; Appellee's Brief at 17. But given the factual sti.pulat �.on.. in the retard: before the court] establishing the nature and extent of the Government's physicalijactivitiis an the land, at best an arguable .defense;might have been that these yea.rs of physical invasion were somehow temporary. '- Nt e of. ithe disputed interrogatories spoke to that question, even assuming it was legitimately before the. court.� In Ingalls Sh pbuildinq, Inti. v, U.S. , 857 F.Zd 144$ {Fed, Gir. 1958} , this court reversed a similar Rule 37 liismissal. The government had provided ohlY the most generalized responses to a contractor's interrogatories seeking the particulars of a fraud claim. ithe court supported its holding in part with the trial court's failurelto give 'i laintiffs ample notice of its intent to dismiss the case, whereas here the plaintiffs had a clear warning of the trial judge's intent. Nonetheless, that was said there holds true here. As we see it thea, the court Meted out a sanction tantamount to dismissal-, 0567 not because of any willful failure to answer Litton's interrogatories, but :because of the government's continued pursuit of a case the court felt had no merit Discovery sinctions,`I however, are meant to deter intentional abuse of the discovery process,_ not as' a means to resolve the merits of a case. Where the problem is a perceived inadequacy of proof, not the: failure to.provide it ' dismissal. as a sanction under Rule 37 is not warranted (citations omitted . Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc,. v. tln ed States, 857 F,2d at 1451 . •As :we stated above in setting put our standard of :review.. we may reverse a. trial:. court'`s Rule �7; dismissal. as. an abuse of discretion" when that dismissal is based, amnn other things, upon an err. neaus conclusion of law Out examinatftn of the. retard before cis leaves us with a firm conviction that (tile has occurred in' dt least three ways:. `04. F x _•,_ ,_ _ .. _ _ _ .. .. .. _ -Footnotes- - _ - - - - i614 See Western. Elec. Inc. Env, Piez.a Technology, Inc., 460 :F 2.d at 431 1tri`al- cdurt erred in interprettA a'Supreme Court case which permitted the Secretary of Agriculture to be deposed;; bordering the deposition of a patent :examffrer was an abuse of discretion.). _ _ - - - - _ . _ _ - -£nd footnotes- LEXISIS l