USCA1 Opinion

September 15, 1992

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

_________________________
No. 92-1401
RADIOCENTRO, INC., ETC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ALTOS COMPUTER SYSTEMS,
Defendant, Appellee.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Boyle,* District Judge.
______________
_________________________
Ciro A. Betancourt
__________________
appellant.

and Eduardo A. Betancourt on brief

______________________

for

Maggie Correa Aviles, Jaime E. Toro Monserrate and McConnell

____________________ ________________________
_________
Valdes Kelley Sifre Griggs & Ruiz Suria on brief for appellee.
_______________________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_______________
*Chief Judge, United States District
Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

Per Curiam.
___________
27, 1990.

Early

Court for the

District of

Suit was started in this case on November

on, the defendant sought basic discovery by way

of interrogatories, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, and requests for document

production, Fed.
respond

in

compliance.

R. Civ. P.
timeous

34.

fashion,

When

defendant

See D.P.R. Loc. R. 311.11.

___

plaintiff agreed that it would comply

initiatives within a week.
On

July 8,

moved to compel

1991,

discovery.

the plaintiff failed

formally

to

requested

After two such requests,

with the pending discovery

It failed to do so.
still

empty-handed, the

defendant

The plaintiff did not respond to the

motion but, at a status conference held

a

magistrate-judge,

August
in

1, 1991.

the breach.

the plaintiff

22, 1991)

offered

to

make amends

by

Again, the plaintiff's promise was honored only

When

defendant filed another

the magistrate granted it,

the pending

on July 16, 1991, before

ordering the plaintiff to comply with

discovery initiatives within five

"or face

motion to compel,

days (from August

the strong possibility of

dismissal."

The

plaintiff's ensuing motion for an extension of time was denied.

The plaintiff continued to stonewall.
five-day deadline was ignored.
to

The magistrate's

Accordingly, the defendant moved

dismiss the action for plaintiff's failure to comply with the

discovery order.

At

interrogatories.

long last, the plaintiff served

Shortly

plaintiff's counsel
pretrial

conference.

thereafter,

failed to
The

on

appear at a

defendant

dismiss, citing plaintiff's disregard

filed

October

answers to
3,

1991,

previously scheduled
another motion

to

of the discovery order and

its boycotting of the scheduled status conference.

The plaintiff

opposed

to

dismissal,

attributing

noncompliance

personal problems, a scheduling mix-up, and the like.

counsel's

On February
action.

In

5, 1992, the district

his order,

the judge

judge dismissed the

pointedly noted

plaintiff's

"unexcusable delays" in furnishing discovery, specifically

that plaintiff was guilty

of a "manifest pattern of

concluded

had shown

that plaintiff

applicable rules and timetables.

found

delay," and

"total disregard"

of the

Following denial of its motion

for reconsideration, plaintiff appealed.

We need not
entirely supportable.
the

record here

other

conduct

tarry.
This

The district

was no mere isolated slip.

betokening

late.

recalcitrance persisted
warning

dismissal.
knocked

plaintiff was

cavalier

The

specific

that

The court's

into

Rather,

is replete with evidence of broken promises and

procedure.
Its

court's findings are

disregard

not only late

further

in the face
delay

timetable

cocked hat.

might

for discovery
On

for

but

orderly

egregiously

of the
well

court's

engender

and trial

this infelicitous

was

record,

dismissal was among the sanctions that the district court, in its
discretion, was entitled to employ.1
v.

Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.,

______________________________

See National Hockey League

___________________________

427 U.S. 639, 642-43 (1976);

____________________

1Plaintiff contends that affirming the judgment below will

result in punishing an innocent client for its attorney's
shortcomings. To some extent, that is true. We have, however,
regularly held that sort of argument to be overridden by the very
nature of the adversary system. See, e.g., Damiani, 704 F.2d at
___ ____ _______
16; Corchado, 665 F.2d at 413; see also Link, 370 U.S. at 633-34.
________
___ ____ ____
3

Link
____

v. Wabash R.R., 370

____________

U.S.V. Labs., Inc., 842

____________________

U.S. 626,
F.2d 535,

Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Fudge,

____________________
_____
Damiani
_______

633-35 (1962);
537

(1st Cir.

Spiller v.
_______

1988); Farm
____

831 F.2d 18, 20 (1st Cir.

v. Rhode Island Hospital,

_____________________

704 F.2d 12,

1987);

15-16 (1st Cir.

1983); Corchado v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc., 665 F.2d

________
____________________________________
410, 413 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826 (1982).
_____ ______
As

this appeal

presents no

substantial

need go no further. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.

___

Affirmed.
________

question, we