## Facts

- Léon Degrelle, a resident of Spain, filed suit in the Central District of California against the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC), alleging SWC labeled him a Nazi war criminal and offered a $1,000,000 reward for his capture.
- Degrelle’s amended complaint sought damages and asserted claims for racketeering, assault, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and defamation.
- SWC noticed Degrelle’s deposition in Los Angeles under Rule 30 for September 29, 1986; Degrelle did not appear and instead lodged an objection.
- SWC re-noticed the deposition for November 5, 1986; Degrelle again did not appear (counsel received a mailgram the day before stating he would not attend).
- SWC moved to dismiss under Rule 37(d) for failure to attend the deposition. The district court denied dismissal but ordered Degrelle to appear for deposition in Los Angeles within 60 days of receiving notice by express mail and warned that failure to appear without first obtaining a protective order would result in dismissal of the action.
- After SWC re-noticed the deposition and served the court’s order, Degrelle moved under Rule 26(c) for a protective order seeking to defer the deposition until 10 days before trial or, alternatively, to proceed by written interrogatories.
- A magistrate judge denied the protective-order request, finding inadequate support for Degrelle’s claimed health limitations, finding support for his claim that he could not afford travel, ordering SWC to pay his round-trip airfare from Spain to California, rejecting written interrogatories as an adequate substitute, and concluding that conducting the deposition in Spain would be complicated, expensive, and uncertain.
- SWC sent Degrelle a round-trip airline ticket by express mail for the magistrate-set deposition date, but Degrelle again failed to appear.
- SWC moved for default judgment; Degrelle did not oppose. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 37(b) as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery orders.
- Degrelle appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Degrelle’s action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) as a sanction for failing to comply with court and magistrate discovery orders requiring him to appear for deposition in Los Angeles.
2. Whether Degrelle showed good cause for a protective order that would delay his deposition until near trial or substitute written interrogatories for an in-person deposition.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished memorandum disposition.
- The court held that Rule 37(b)(2)(C) authorizes dismissal as a sanction for failing to comply with a discovery order and that the district court had authority to dismiss the case.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice given Degrelle’s repeated failure to appear after clear orders and warning, and despite the magistrate’s accommodation requiring SWC to pay for his round-trip airfare.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may impose sanctions under Rule 37(b) for failure to obey a discovery order, including dismissal of the action with prejudice. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C).)
- Appellate review of Rule 37 dismissal sanctions is for abuse of discretion.
- Repeated nonappearance for a properly noticed and court-ordered deposition, particularly after an express warning that dismissal will follow, supports dismissal as a permissible sanction.
- A protective order under Rule 26(c) requires a showing of good cause; a party’s preference to postpone a deposition until shortly before trial or to substitute written interrogatories may be rejected when it would materially limit discovery.
- When a party claims inability to travel, a court may address that concern through conditions such as cost-shifting, rather than excusing compliance with the deposition order.

## Conclusion

Degrelle v. Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1989 WL 90172 (1989), upheld a Rule 37(b) dismissal with prejudice where the plaintiff repeatedly refused to attend his deposition in the forum court ordered, even after being warned that noncompliance would end the case and after the magistrate required the defendant to pay for the plaintiff’s round-trip airfare from Spain to Los Angeles.
