- 17 -
party's failure to comply with a court's discovery orders. In
interpreting and applying this Court's discovery rules, we
normally look for guidance to court decisions interpreting their
counterparts in the FRCP. See Rosenfeld v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.
105, 116-117, 120 (1984); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 493, 495-496 (1981); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 469,
473-474 (1979).
Under FRCP 37(b)(2), once it has been shown that a party has
not complied with a court's discovery order, sanctions are
appropriate. Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197,
206-208 (1958). However, inasmuch as dismissal is one of the
most severe sanctions available under FRCP 37(b)(2), it is
reserved for the most egregious cases where a party's conduct
clearly warrants it. See, e.g., Marshall v. Segona, 621 F.2d
763, 767-768 (5th Cir. 1980); Jones v. Louisiana State Bar
Association, 602 F.2d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Dusha v.
Commissioner, supra at 605.
In Societe Internationale v. Rogers, supra, the Supreme
Court construed FRCP 37(b)(2). Because of due process concerns,
the Supreme Court held that dismissal was improper where the
party's failure to comply was "due to inability, and not to
willfulness, bad faith, or any fault of * * * [the party]." Id.
at 212. However, if willfulness, bad faith, or other fault is
present, dismissal may be appropriate even though there has been
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011