The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Respondent's antitrust action was dismissed for a failure to timely answer interrogatories as ordered by the District Court and under Rule 37. The District Court indicated that crucial interrogatories remained substantially unanswered after 17 months despite numerous extensions granted before and after the eleventh hour. The court concluded that this conduct demonstrated the callous disregard of responsibilities counsel owe to the court and their opponents. The Court of Appeals reversed in that there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding that respondent failed to answer was in flagrant bad faith, willful or intentional. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.