Lexplug logoLexplug

Pressey v. Patterson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
898 F.2d 1018 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The harshest discovery sanctions, such as striking a party's pleadings and entering a default judgment, are reserved for instances of bad faith or willful misconduct. A court's decision to impose such sanctions will be reversed as an abuse of discretion if the record does not support a finding of such conduct and less drastic remedies are available.


Facts:

  • Houston police officers Kendall Patterson and W.L. Brasher were investigating a traffic accident.
  • William Pressey approached the scene in his truck and, despite Officer Patterson's signals, did not move through promptly.
  • As Pressey's truck began to move, Patterson ran alongside it and shot Pressey in the head.
  • Patterson and Brasher subsequently fabricated a story to justify the shooting.
  • Separately, Sergeant Steve Reiser, a supervisor in the Houston Police Department's internal affairs division, gave a taped interview to a Houston Post reporter about problems within the division.
  • Around the time he was transferred from internal affairs, Sergeant Reiser burned his personal copies of the interview tapes.
  • The Houston Post reporter, Ira Perry, retained his own copies of the interview tapes.

Procedural Posture:

  • Melva Pressey, on behalf of William Pressey, sued Officer Patterson, Officer Brasher, and the City of Houston in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
  • During discovery, Pressey learned of and requested cassette tapes of an interview with Sergeant Reiser.
  • The City of Houston initially responded that the tapes were likely erased through routine reuse.
  • During a later deposition, Pressey's attorney learned that Sergeant Reiser had intentionally burned the tapes.
  • Pressey filed a motion asking the court to strike the City of Houston's answer as a sanction for discovery abuses.
  • The district court granted the motion, struck the City's answer, and entered a default judgment on liability against the City.
  • Following a trial on damages, a jury returned a verdict of over $6.7 million, which the court supplemented with interest and attorneys' fees.
  • The City of Houston appealed the default judgment on liability and the damages award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a district court abuse its discretion by striking a defendant's answer and entering a default judgment on liability as a sanction for discovery misconduct when the record does not support a finding of bad faith or willful misconduct?


Opinions:

Majority - W. Eugene Davis

Yes. A district court abuses its discretion by striking a defendant's answer as a sanction where the record does not support a finding of bad faith or willful misconduct. The destruction of the tapes, while intentional, was not shown to be an act of bad faith intended to deprive the plaintiff of evidence; it was an irrational act given that another copy of the tapes existed with a reporter. Furthermore, the City's misrepresentations about the tapes' destruction were not proven to be intentional falsehoods, and its other discovery delays did not rise to the level of willful abuse necessary to justify the severest sanction. The court found that less drastic sanctions, such as deeming certain facts admitted or imposing monetary penalties, would have been more appropriate.



Analysis:

This case reinforces the high threshold required for imposing "death penalty" sanctions in civil litigation. It establishes that even a pattern of discovery non-compliance, including the destruction of evidence, does not automatically warrant striking a party's pleadings without a clear showing of bad faith or willful intent to obstruct the judicial process. The court's reasoning emphasizes that sanctions must be tailored to the specific misconduct and that lower courts must consider less severe alternatives before resorting to case-dispositive penalties. This precedent serves as a significant check on trial courts' discretion, protecting litigants from losing their day in court due to conduct that, while improper, is not demonstrably malicious or intentionally deceptive.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Pressey v. Patterson (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"