Dwight W. Keefer v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
Docket: 99-4159
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; January 26, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Dwight W. Keefer appeals the dismissal of his damages action against Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company due to discovery abuses. Keefer initially sought a declaratory judgment in state court regarding his disability insurance policy, which Provident removed to federal court, counterclaiming for overpayment and arguing that Keefer was not disabled. Keefer claims disabilities from trauma-induced fibromyalgia, a seizure disorder, and mental illness stemming from an automobile accident, seeking lifetime benefits.
The crux of the discovery dispute involves Keefer's appointment books ('DayTimers'), which Provident sought to use to challenge medical experts' testimonies reliant on Keefer's accounts of his daily activities. Keefer failed to disclose his possession of these records and secretly recorded audiotapes initially. During lengthy depositions, Keefer acknowledged having a 1996 DayTimer, admitted to modifying entries, and later produced only selected DayTimers despite repeated requests. In October 1998, Provident sought detailed information about deletions in the DayTimers, to which Keefer responded that providing this information would be too burdensome, claiming numerous entries had been altered, while asserting various privileges over unspecified deletions.
In December 1998, Keefer was asked to provide all DayTimers and assert any claims of privilege regarding them. During a January 11, 1999, conference, Keefer's counsel indicated a review of redacted information from the 1998 DayTimer for privilege. A subsequent court hearing on March 30, 1999, revealed to the court and Provident that redactions had been made to the original document, prompting the court to label this behavior as "outrageous" and order Keefer to submit the original and reconstruct any deleted entries. Keefer complied on April 23, 1999, but on May 21, the court found that he had not made a good-faith effort in the reconstruction and that the DayTimer likely contained no privileged information. An evidentiary hearing revealed Keefer redacted the DayTimer due to privacy concerns and acknowledged that redactions occurred after he was aware of Provident's interest in the documents. Following the hearing, Keefer requested the return of the DayTimer for expert examination, which Provident opposed.
On July 30, 1999, the district court indicated an intention to dismiss Keefer's action as a sanction for willful misconduct that significantly harmed Provident and demonstrated a pattern intended to obstruct discovery. Keefer's motion to alter the judgment was denied, leading to his appeal. He argued that the dismissal was erroneous since evidence was not destroyed and that Provident failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the DayTimer's redactions. The court's authority to impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) requires an order compelling discovery, a willful violation of that order, and demonstrated prejudice to the opposing party. While the district court's decisions on discovery are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, dismissals as sanctions require closer scrutiny due to the fundamental right to be heard and should only be imposed if no lesser sanction is appropriate.
The district court has broad discretion in imposing sanctions for abuse of the judicial process, including dismissal. In this case, the harsh sanction of dismissal was deemed appropriate due to Keefer's willful destruction of evidence and failure to comply with discovery orders, despite being given multiple warnings. Keefer's actions, particularly the obliteration of entries in his DayTimer, significantly prejudiced Provident by hindering its ability to counter medical evidence regarding Keefer's disability claims. Although the exact harm to Provident was not quantifiable, it was clear that Keefer's misconduct, including the failure to attempt a good-faith reconstruction of the obliterated entries, warranted dismissal. The district court also considered and rejected less severe sanctions, concluding that Keefer's obstructive behavior throughout the litigation justified the decision. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling, affirming the judgment. Additional notes highlight Keefer's ongoing obstructive tactics in other discovery disputes and his unsuccessful claims of privilege concerning documents. His last-minute efforts to reconstruct evidence were deemed inadequate, emphasizing that parties are not expected to facilitate discovery at the last moment after extensive noncompliance.
