◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 73 nishing relevant documents as requested, deliberately impeded discovery and actively obstructed the judicial process, thus denying plaintiffs the fair trial to which they were entitled.! Regrettably, the trial judge per- mitted these tactics. Moreover, he repeatedly exonerated the federal defendants for their derelictions. Instead of applying sanctions on these defendants and their counsel, the court assessed costs against plaintiffs in ex- cess of $26,000 for the Government’s time in reproduc- ing the documents which were finally furnished to plain- tiffs only under the orders of the court. If there were any doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence when considered under the applicable standard constituting a jury question on liability, the delay of the. federal defendants in meeting their obligations to produce relevant documentary material would supply a basis for an inference that plaintiffs were unable to pre- sent all the available evidence and thus were denied the opportunity to prove their case. On- retrial the court should consider plaintiffs’ contention that they ultimate- ly were denied full discovery. Moreover, sanctions should be imposed, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), against the federal defendants and counsel representing them at the first trial for repeatedly disobeying court orders to produce documentary material. “@ The federal defendants contend that since the documents in question are official FBI documents, they had_no control over them and should not be held responsible for the obstruc- tive tactics regarding their production in the course of dis- covery. Neither federal defendants nor their counsel (provided by the federal government) said at trial, however, that the delays in producin the relevant documents were caused by their lack of control over the documents; instead, the record is replete with statements by the federal defendants and their counsel suggesting that documents which were discovered later never existed. 45 Fed.R.Civ.P. 87(b\(2) states in relevant part: In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him or both to pay the (Footnote continued on following page)