Projects Management Company v. DynCorp International LLC

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01345-TSE-IDD. [999233839]. [12-2241]

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 24

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2241

PROJECTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01345-TSE-IDD)

Argued:

September 19, 2013

Decided:

November 5, 2013

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Davis and Judge Diaz joined.

ARGUED: Thomas Bausman Kenworthy, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Joseph William
Koegel, Jr., STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: John F. O’Connor, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 24

AGEE, Circuit Judge:
Projects
district

Management

court’s

International

Company

dismissal

LLC

of

(“DynCorp”).

(“PMC”)
its

The

appeals

suit

district

from

against
court

the

DynCorp
dismissed

PMC’s suit on two alternate grounds: first, as a sanction for
PMC’s

repeated

discovery

abuses;

and

second,

based

on

its

conclusion that PMC was seeking damages contrary to the measure
of damages provided by well-established law. For the reasons set
forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.
DynCorp

contracted

with

the

United

States

Department

of

State to assist in the development of a civilian police force in
Iraq. In connection with this contract, DynCorp entered into a
subcontract

with

PMC

(the

“Subcontract”)

for

operations

and

maintenance support in Iraq between August 1, 2008 and February
17, 2009, with an option to extend performance to February 28,
2010.

PMC

executed

the

Subcontract

with

DynCorp

through

its

Managing Director, Hussein Fawaz, who was also represented to
DynCorp as having an ownership interest in PMC. The Subcontract

2

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

identified

PMC

Filed: 11/05/2013

Project

Pg: 3 of 24

Manager

Greg

Byers

provided

that

PMC

as

PMC’s

point

of

contact with DynCorp. 1
The

Subcontract

would

periodically

invoice DynCorp and that DynCorp would, within 45 days of the
date of each invoice, tender periodic payments to PMC by making
a wire transfer directly to an account held by PMC at Kuwait
Gulf Bank (the “Kuwait Account”). The Subcontract also provided
that

“[n]o

oral

statement

of

any

person

shall

modify

or

otherwise affect the terms, conditions, or specifications stated
in this Subcontract.” (J.A. 39.) PMC began its performance under
the Subcontract and listed payment instructions on the face of
each invoice sent to DynCorp. The invoices were paid by DynCorp
according to those payment instructions, which were consistent
with the payment information in the Subcontract. In December
2008, PMC’s invoices began directing DynCorp to make payments to
a new bank account at the National Bank of Kuwait (Lebanon)
located in Beirut, Lebanon and held in the name of Fawaz (the
“Lebanon

Account”).

DynCorp

personnel

contacted

PMC

through

Fawaz and Byers to confirm that future payments should be made
to the Lebanon Account rather than the Kuwait Account. Fawaz

1

The Subcontract listed no other PMC employees, and DynCorp
was made aware of no other principals or managers of PMC.

3

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 4 of 24

responded to DynCorp with a letter written on PMC letterhead
directing DynCorp to make its payments to the Lebanon Account.
Byers also responded to DynCorp by email, confirming the change
in payment instructions and stating that all PMC invoices would
list the correct banking information on their face. Another PMC
employee, acting at the direction of Fawaz and Byers, followed
up with DynCorp to confirm that future payments should be made
to the Lebanon Account. DynCorp then began making payments to
the Lebanon Account, as directed in the PMC invoices. PMC did
not inform DynCorp of any problems with its payments.
Near the end of the initial Subcontract term, DynCorp and
PMC, through Greg Byers, agreed to exercise the option to extend
the term of the Subcontract, including a provision that “[a]ll
other terms and conditions remain the same.” (J.A. 75.) After
several months of continuing performance under the Subcontract,
DynCorp

issued

a

Cure

Notice

to

PMC,

notifying

PMC

of

performance issues under the Subcontract and providing PMC with
an opportunity to remedy its performance. Shortly thereafter,
DynCorp terminated the Subcontract and requested a termination
settlement

proposal

from

PMC.

In

response,

PMC

requested

a

payment of $978,494.22, claiming $789,099.50 in unpaid invoices
and $189,394.72 in other costs and expenses. The parties did not
reach a settlement agreement.
4

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

After

Filed: 11/05/2013

the

termination

Pg: 5 of 24

of

the

Subcontract,

DynCorp

was

apprised that Fawaz was not, in fact, a part owner of PMC. It
was further revealed that PMC’s true owners were members of the
Al-Muhanna family of Kuwait, most notably Rabea Al-Muhanna, who
PMC contends had sole authority over the financial affairs of
PMC.
On January 25, 2012, PMC sued DynCorp in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under the
court’s

diversity

jurisdiction,

alleging

breach

of

contract,

aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and business
conspiracy. Specifically, PMC alleged that DynCorp breached its
contract

with

PMC

by

making

payments

to

the

Lebanon

Account

instead of the Kuwait Account. After a pre-trial conference, the
parties

submitted

a

discovery

plan,

representing

that

all

discovery would be completed by April 13, 2012. The district
court set a trial date of August 15, 2012. During discovery,
DynCorp learned that at least some of the funds it had paid into
the Lebanon Account had been used to pay obligations of PMC. In
particular, DynCorp learned that PMC’s primary subcontractor in
Iraq,

Cater-Corp,

had

received

significant

payments

from

the

Lebanon Account.
After the close of discovery, DynCorp moved for partial
summary judgment on the issue of whether the Subcontract had
5

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 6 of 24

been modified “to permit instructions on each individual invoice
submitted by PMC to DynCorp to determine the account into which
DynCorp’s payments were to be made.” (J.A. 77.) The district
court granted partial summary judgment to DynCorp, concluding
that the parties’ method of changing banking instructions on the
face of PMC’s invoices complied with the requirements in the
Subcontract for modification. The district court denied summary
judgment in part by expressly declining to conclude that either
Fawaz or Byers had actual or apparent authority to modify the
payment instructions in the Subcontract because genuine issues
of material fact remained to be decided at trial as to that
issue.
On May 31, 2012, following the district court’s summary
judgment order and the close of discovery, PMC disclosed its
damages calculation. PMC claimed $7,664,638.22 in total damages,
$6,920,501.56 of which represented the entire amount previously
paid

by

DynCorp

into

the

Lebanon

Account.

The

remaining

$744,136.66 was for unpaid invoices that remained outstanding.
DynCorp and PMC later settled PMC’s claim with respect to the
$744,136.66 of unpaid invoices. Thus, only the $6.92 million
that DynCorp paid into the Lebanon Account is at issue here.
DynCorp

filed

a

motion

in

limine

to

preclude

PMC

from

presenting its damages calculation at trial. DynCorp argued that
6

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 7 of 24

PMC improperly withheld its damages calculation until after the
close

of

discovery,

leaving

DynCorp

with

no

ability

to

take

discovery relating to damages or to address the damages issues
on

summary

judgment.

In

addition,

DynCorp

argued

that

PMC’s

damages calculation was contrary to well-established law because
it

failed

Lebanon

to

account

Account

to

for
PMC

millions

of

employees

dollars

from

the

subcontractors

and

paid

in

satisfaction of PMC obligations. Further, DynCorp argued that
PMC had intentionally withheld documents showing that funds were
paid from the Lebanon Account to satisfy PMC obligations with
the contemporaneous knowledge of PMC’s owners.
DynCorp also moved the district court to impose sanctions
against PMC under the court’s inherent authority to sanction a
party for abusing the judicial process, as recognized in United
States v. Shaffer Equipment Co., 11 F.3d 450, 461–63 (4th Cir.
1993). DynCorp argued that sanctions were warranted because PMC
had concealed documents during discovery that evidenced PMC’s
knowledge

of

and

acquiescence

to

Fawaz’s

use

of

the

Lebanon

Account to administer the Subcontract and pay PMC subcontractors
and employees. In support of its motion, DynCorp represented
that it received documents from a third party indicating that
PMC participated in Fawaz’s use of the Lebanon Account. Only
after

DynCorp

received

these

third-party
7

documents,

and

long

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

after

the

Filed: 11/05/2013

close

of

Pg: 8 of 24

discovery,

did

PMC

produce

an

additional

2,000 pages of documents demonstrating that PMC acquiesced to
Fawaz’s

use

of

the

Lebanon

Account.

This

late

production,

DynCorp argued, prevented it from taking meaningful depositions
of

PMC’s

Philip

Rule

30(b)(6)

Zacharia,

and

representatives,

deprived

DynCorp

Rabea

of

Al-Muhanna

access

to

and

evidence

critical to its summary judgment motion. DynCorp also posited
that

PMC’s

late-produced

documents

revealed

that

PMC’s

Rule

30(b)(6) representatives 2 provided false or misleading testimony
and that PMC provided false interrogatory answers.
The district court conducted hearings on DynCorp’s motions
and granted the motion for sanctions, finding that “PMC failed
to produce relevant and requested documents in a timely manner.”
(J.A. 83.) Finding that the factors listed in Shaffer Equipment
were applicable, the district court held that PMC’s “failure of
discovery warrant[ed] the imposition of sanctions.” (J.A. 83.)
Although DynCorp had requested that the district court dismiss
PMC’s claim as sanctions for PMC’s discovery abuse, the district

2

Under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, when an organization is required to provide testimony
in a civil trial, that organization must “designate one or more
officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other
persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it may set out
the matters on which each person designated will testify.”

8

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 9 of 24

court declined to do so. Instead, the district court ordered PMC
to produce both of its Rule 30(b)(6) designees for additional
depositions

before

August

11,

2012,

at

a

place

of

DynCorp’s

choosing, costs to be borne by PMC. The district court further
ordered

that

the

factual

substance

of

each

late-produced

document be deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1)(C) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court deferred
any further decision on DynCorp’s motion for sanctions, holding
in abeyance “any decision to award a monetary sanction against
PMC for its discovery defalcation,” (J.A. 85), and deferred its
decision on DynCorp’s motion in limine, “pending the parties
[sic] submission of further briefs related to the proper measure
of

damages

and

the

timeliness

of

PMC’s

disclosure

of

this

measure.” (J.A. 85.)
PMC filed for a protective order to relieve it from having
to produce Zacharia for deposition and from having to produce
Al-Muhanna

until

August

13,

2012,

two

days

before

the trial

date. DynCorp renewed its motion in limine on the damages issue
and

again

court’s

sought

inherent

dismissal
authority

of
to

the
impose

case

under

the

district

sanctions.

The

district

court found that the partial remedies it had previously imposed
had failed to “ameliorat[e] the significant prejudice to DynCorp
stemming from the discovery defalcations.” (J.A. 88.) Still, the
9

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

district

Filed: 11/05/2013

court

expressly

Pg: 10 of 24

declined

to

dismiss

the

case

and

instead ordered PMC to produce its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses by
August 13, 2012. The district court deferred ruling on DynCorp’s
motion

in

additional

limine

and

sanctions,

made

clear

including

that

dismissal,

it

would

if

PMC

consider
failed

to

ameliorate the prejudice that its discovery defalcations caused
DynCorp. 3
On

August

13,

PMC

offered

Al-Muhanna

and

Zacharia

for

deposition. However, PMC also informed DynCorp that Al-Muhanna
and

Zacharia

were

no

longer

its

Rule

30(b)(6)

witnesses

and

offered Mohammed Roof as its new Rule 30(b)(6) representative.
PMC also continued to produce additional relevant documents that

3

The district court stated that
[b]ecause the remedies for PMC’s discovery
defalcations fell far short of remedying the
prejudice,
DynCorp
orally
renewed
their
motion to dismiss. The Court denied that
motion from the bench and instead ordered
PMC to produce its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses
by Monday, August 13, 2012. Although the
motion to dismiss was denied, the Court made
clear that it would reconsider if the
remedies for PMC’s discovery defalcations
fail to ameliorate the prejudice DynCorp
suffered, given the proximity of the trial
date.

(J.A. 88.)

10

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 11 of 24

it had not previously disclosed, some of which were written in
Arabic. DynCorp then submitted a supplemental memorandum to the
district court, renewing its motion in limine and requesting
that

the

district

alternatively,

court

dismiss

strike

the

case.

PMC’s
On

claim

August

of

15,

damages
the

or

district

court heard argument on and granted DynCorp’s motion in limine.
The district court noted that “[t]hroughout the pendency of the
case, PMC has consistently asserted that the proper measure of
PMC’s damages for the breach of the Subcontract is the total
amount of money DynCorp paid into the Lebanon [A]ccount.” (J.A.
95.) And in pursuing that theory of damages, PMC continually
“refused to comply with DynCorp’s discovery requests aimed at
ascertaining

the

identity

of

PMC’s

subcontractors,

the

subcontracts between PMC and those entities, and whether monies
were paid from the Lebanon [A]ccount to PMC’s subcontractors and
employees for work done in connection with the Subcontract.”
(J.A. 96.) The district court concluded that, as a matter of
law, PMC bore the burden of proving not only the amount of money
received from DynCorp through the Lebanon Account, but also the
costs avoided by the fact that some of PMC’s subcontractors and
employees were paid out of the Lebanon Account, relieving PMC of
the obligation to pay those debts. The district court thus held

11

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 12 of 24

that PMC’s measure of damages was improper and contrary to law
and ordered PMC’s claim for damages to be excluded from trial. 4
The district court also reconsidered sanctions against PMC
and found that the prior remedies it had ordered fell “far short
of

remedying

continuing
court

the

prejudice”

discovery

detailed

the

to

DynCorp

defalcations.
extent

of

(J.A.

PMC’s

caused
102.)

abusive

by

The

PMC’s

district

behavior

in

this

case: PMC did not provide its measure of damages until after the
close of discovery; PMC refused to account for costs avoided in
its

measure

of

damages,

as

required

by

law;

PMC

withheld

documents showing that funds were paid from the Lebanon Account
to PMC subcontractors; and PMC withheld documents showing that
PMC ownership had contemporaneous knowledge of those payments.
Specifically,
withheld

a

the

district

number

of

court

found

documents

that

showing

PMC
that

improperly
Al-Muhanna

contemporaneously knew that funds from the Lebanon Account were
being used to satisfy PMC obligations. The district court then
found

that

deposition

these

documents

testimony

that

directly

contradicted

PMC

ceased

4

had

Al-Muhanna’s

payments

to

its

Because PMC did not present an alternate theory of
damages, the district court’s exclusion of PMC’s claim of
damages against DynCorp left PMC able to pursue only nominal
damages for breach of contract.

12

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 13 of 24

subcontractors and employees once DynCorp began making payments
to the Lebanon Account. The district court also concluded that
PMC gave a false answer to an interrogatory when it was asked to
“[i]dentify

all

[A]ccount,

.

[A]ccount

to

answered

that

.

funds

received

as

as

.

satisfy
it

well

all

obligations

“has

by

PMC

from

payments

the

from

the

of

PMC.”

(J.A.

received

not

Lebanon

funds

from

Lebanon

1594.)
Mr.

PMC

Fawaz’s

Lebanon [A]ccount, and it is not aware of the extent, if any, to
which payments were made from Mr. Fawaz’s personal account in
Lebanon to satisfy . . . obligations of PMC.” (J.A. 1594–95.)
The district court found that it was “clear that PMC knew that
some funds had been paid from the Lebanon [A]ccount to [PMC]
subcontractors.” (J.A. 1595.)
The

district

court

also

noted

that

PMC’s

Rule

30(b)(6)

witnesses refused to be deposed before August 11 as ordered and
were

not

available

for

deposition

until

August

13,

two

days

before the trial date. It noted that PMC sent a series of latenight

emails

contained

in

on
135

August

12,

separate

producing

PDF

and

a

Excel

number

of

attachments

documents
for

the

August 13 depositions, which were scheduled to begin at 9:30 the
next morning. On the morning of the 13th, PMC delivered two
boxes of documents to DynCorp, including documents that had not
yet been produced and new documents that were written in Arabic.
13

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 14 of 24

PMC also took the position that neither Al-Muhanna nor Zacharia
was appearing as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent and named an entirely
new

Rule

30(b)(6)

depositions

of

witness.

Al-Muhanna

And

and

when

DynCorp

Zacharia,

took

both

the

witnesses

new
gave

evasive and unresponsive answers to the questions propounded.
The district court again evaluated PMC’s conduct under the
standard

in

Schaffer

Equipment,

invoking

its

“inherent

authority” to “impose sanctions up to, and including, the ‘most
extreme sanction,’ the ‘dismissal without deciding the merits.’” 5
(J.A.

102

(quoting

Schaffer

Equip.,

11

F.3d

at

462).)

The

district court concluded that PMC was highly culpable in its
discovery

defalcations

prejudiced

by

PMC’s

and

that

actions.

DynCorp

The

was

district

significantly
court

further

concluded that its prior sanctions did not remedy the prejudice
to

DynCorp.

Because

no

further

actions

on

PMC’s

part

could

remedy the harm to DynCorp, the district court concluded that
involuntary
dismissed

dismissal
PMC’s

case

was
with

warranted.
prejudice

The
and

district

entered

its

court
final

judgment on September 7, 2012.

5

The district court noted that it also had the power to
impose sanctions under Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, but placed its “principal reliance on its inherent
powers.” (J.A. 102 n.10.)

14

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 15 of 24

PMC timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291.

II.
We

review

a

district

court’s

decision

to

exercise

its

inherent power to dismiss a case for an abuse of discretion.
Shaffer

Equip.,

11

F.3d

at

462.

We

also

review

a

district

court’s grant of a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion.
Malone v. Microdyne Corp., 26 F.3d 471, 480 (4th Cir. 1994).

III.
PMC principally argues on appeal that the district court
abused its discretion by imposing a sanction of dismissal of its
case against DynCorp. 6 We have previously recognized that, “[d]ue
to the very nature of the court as an institution, it must and
does have an inherent power to impose order, respect, decorum,

6

PMC also challenges the district court’s grant of
DynCorp’s motion in limine and dismissal of PMC’s claim for
damages as being contrary to the applicable contract law. PMC
further argues that the district court improperly granted
DynCorp’s motion for summary judgment, contending that genuine
issues of material fact existed that required determination by
the trier of fact. Because we affirm the district court’s
exercise of its inherent authority to dismiss PMC’s case as
sanctions for PMC’s abuse of the discovery process, we need not
address PMC’s remaining claims.

15

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 16 of 24

silence, and compliance with lawful mandates.” Shaffer Equip.,
11 F.3d at 461. A court’s inherent power includes the ability to
order

the

entered

dismissal

with

dismissal

are

the

of

a

case,

greatest

appropriate

though

caution.”
“when

a

“such

Id.

party

at

orders

deceives

be

Orders

462.

must

of

court

or

a

abuses the process at a level that is utterly inconsistent with
the

orderly

administration

of

justice

or

undermines

the

integrity of the process.” Id.
Before

exercising

its

inherent

power

to

dismiss

a

case

based on the wrongdoing of a party in the judicial process,
a court must consider the following factors:
(1)
the
degree
of
the
wrongdoer's
culpability; (2) the extent of the client's
blameworthiness if the wrongful conduct is
committed by its attorney, recognizing that
we seldom dismiss claims against blameless
clients; (3) the prejudice to the judicial
process and the administration of justice;
(4) the prejudice to the victim; (5) the
availability of other sanctions to rectify
the wrong by punishing culpable persons,
compensating harmed persons, and deterring
similar conduct in the future; and (6) the
public interest.
Id. at 462–63.
In this case, the district court concluded that all six
Shaffer Equipment factors weighed in favor of dismissal and that
“[t]he

course

discovery

of

this

defalcations.”

litigation
(J.A.

has

100.)

been
The

marred

court

set

by

PMC’s

out

in

extensive detail the particulars of PMC’s discovery abuse and
16

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 17 of 24

linked those abuses to each of the Shaffer Equipment factors.
(J.A. 1573–96.) With respect to the first factor, the district
court found that “there is a high degree of culpability” on the
part of PMC. (J.A. 1592.) In support of this conclusion, the
district court found that PMC made a calculated effort to shield
its damages claim from the crucible of discovery by providing
false

answers

testimony,
during

to

interrogatories,

withholding

discovery,

and

a

large

providing

number

making

late

of

false

deposition

relevant

disclosures

documents

of

material

significance that continued until the day before trial was to
begin.

The

concluding

district
that

court

“PMC,

then

the

addressed

client

rather

the

second

than

factor,

counsel,

has

committed serious discovery defalcations.” (J.A. 103.)
In considering the third, fourth, and fifth factors, the
district

court

substantial

found

prejudice

that
to

“these

the

defalcations

judicial

have

process;

caused

DynCorp

has

suffered serious prejudice; and, the several attempts to provide
partial remedies have failed.” (J.A. 103.) The district court
supported
failure

to

these

conclusions

produce

relevant

by

finding

documents

that

precluded

PMC’s

willful

DynCorp

from

conducting effective discovery or taking effective depositions
of Al-Muhanna or Zacharia, PMC’s Rule 30(b)(6) designees. The
district court then recounted that although it had previously
17

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 18 of 24

imposed lesser sanctions, including ordering PMC to produce AlMuhanna and Zacharia for additional depositions and ordering all
facts contained in withheld documents to be deemed admitted, it
had declined to impose the sanction of dismissal. The district
court

further

found

that,

notwithstanding

its

initial

forbearance, PMC’s unabated obstruction and defiance made clear
that

those

lesser

sanctions

did

not

remedy

the

prejudice

to

DynCorp or deter PMC’s conduct.
Addressing the sixth factor, the district court noted that
“certainly there’s a public interest in ensuring the integrity
of the judicial process.” (J.A. 1581.) Consequently, as “each of
the Shaffer Equipment factors weigh[ed] firmly . . . in favor of
dismissing the case,” the district court imposed the sanction of
dismissal. (J.A. 102–03.)
PMC makes a number of arguments on appeal, none of which
support

reversal

of

the

district

court’s

order.

Among

other

things, PMC argues that Al-Muhanna did not, in fact, provide
false testimony. However, our review of the record demonstrates
that

the

falsely

district

at

her

court’s

deposition

finding
is

not

that

Al-Muhanna

clearly

testified

erroneous.

In

her

deposition, Al-Muhanna was asked, “Has PMC . . . attempted to
determine in any way any benefits PMC received from payments
from the Lebanon [A]ccount in connection with the [Subcontract]
18

Appeal: 12-2241

with

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

DynCorp?”

(J.A.

1586–87.)

Pg: 19 of 24

Al-Muhanna

answered,

“I

don’t

know if I could answer. But for us, PMC is [an] illegal account.
[The] Lebanon bank account is illegal. So I cannot assume that
there [are] any payments that came from it in the correct—I
don’t know what the word is.” (J.A. 1587.) Al-Muhanna was then
asked, “Do you know if PMC received any benefit in connection
with the [Subcontract] with DynCorp from payments made out of
the Lebanon [A]ccount?” She answered, “No.” (J.A. 1587.)
Al-Muhanna’s testimony is directly contradicted by, among
other things, an email she sent on June 3, 2009, in which she
asked to see “the invoices for the payment done by Mr. Hussein
[Fawaz],” showing that she knew that Fawaz was making payments
out of the Lebanon Account during the term of the Subcontract.
(J.A.

978.)

On

August

31,

2009,

Al-Muhanna

received

another

email detailing Fawaz’s payments of PMC staff salaries out of
the

Lebanon

Account.

(J.A.

991.)

And

on

May

18,

2010,

Al-

Muhanna’s staff received from Fawaz a spreadsheet providing a
full accounting of deposits into both the Lebanon Account and
the Kuwait Account as well as expenses paid by PMC out of each
account. (J.A. 1121–48.) Thus, the district court’s finding that
Al-Muhanna

provided

false

deposition

testimony

is

fully

supported by facts in the record. Cf. F.C. Wheat Mar. Corp. v.
United States, 663 F.3d 714, 723 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding that a
19

Appeal: 12-2241

court

Doc: 31

of

Filed: 11/05/2013

appeals

may

reverse

Pg: 20 of 24

a

factual

finding

reviewed

for

clear error only when “left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed”).
PMC also argues that it was improper for the district court
to consider its false interrogatory response because DynCorp did
not

raise

the

false

interrogatory

response

as

a

reason

for

granting sanctions in its motion. Yet PMC points to no legal
authority suggesting that a district court is limited to the
precise

arguments

raised

by

the

parties

when

the

court

is

exercising its inherent authority to impose sanctions consistent
with Shaffer Equipment. While a district court acting under Rule
37(b)

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

would

be

constrained by the terms of that Rule, a court acting under its
inherent authority may impose sanctions for any “conduct utterly
inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.” United
States v. Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 912 (9th Cir.
1986). Compare Buffington v. Balt. Cnty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 132
n.15 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that a court may impose sanctions
under Rule 37(b) “only to violations of a court order to permit
or

provide

discovery,

or

one

in

regard

to

a

discovery

conference”), with Shaffer Equip., 11 F.3d at 461 (holding that
a court’s inherent power to dismiss a case “is organic, without

20

Appeal: 12-2241

need

Doc: 31

of

a

Filed: 11/05/2013

statute

or

rule

Pg: 21 of 24

for

its

definition,

and

it

is

necessary to the exercise of all other powers”).
In fact, a district court exercising its inherent authority
to impose sanctions may do so sua sponte and must consider the
whole

of

the

case

in

choosing

the

appropriate

sanction.

See

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246
(1944) (“The public welfare demands that the agencies of public
justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and
helpless victims of deception and fraud.”), abrogated on other
grounds by Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S.
17 (1976); Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc.,
369 F.3d 385, 389 n.2 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting that the court has
the authority to impose sanctions sua sponte under either Rule
11 or under the court’s inherent authority); In re Prudential
Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions, 278 F.3d 175,
189–91 (3d Cir. 2002) (affirming the imposition of sanctions
after

assessing

the

totality

of

the

sanctioned

attorney’s

conduct before the court).
In this case, the district court dismissed PMC’s claim in
an exercise of its inherent authority and was therefore entitled
to

consider

sanctions

on

its

own

motion

and

without

any

limitation on the types of conduct that it could consider. See
Shaffer Equip., 11 F.3d at 462. PMC was on clear notice of the
21

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

district

Filed: 11/05/2013

court’s

authority

and

Pg: 22 of 24

consideration

had

a

full

of

the

opportunity

use
to

of

its

inherent

argue

its

position

before the court. Moreover, the district court’s finding that
PMC provided a false interrogatory answer is amply supported by
facts

in

the

“[i]dentify

record.

all

When

in

received

funds

asked

by

Interrogatory
PMC

from

No.

the

12

to

Lebanon

[A]ccount, as well as all payments from the Lebanon [A]ccount to
satisfy obligations of PMC,” PMC responded “PMC has not received
funds from Mr. Fawaz’s Lebanon [A]ccount, and it is not aware of
the extent, if any, to which payments were made from Mr. Fawaz’s
personal account in Lebanon to satisfy [obligations] of PMC.”
(J.A. 733.) As noted earlier, this answer is contradicted by the
emails of June 3, 2009, August 31, 2009, and May 18, 2010, all
of

which

demonstrate

that

Al-Muhanna

had

personal,

contemporaneous knowledge of Fawaz’s use of the Lebanon Account
to pay PMC’s indebtedness to subcontractors and employees, some
of which payments were substantial.
PMC

similarly

fails

to

challenge

any

of

the

district

court’s other findings supporting its dismissal of PMC’s claim.
PMC flatly asserts that the district court’s culpability finding
is not supported by substantial evidence, referring back to its
previous arguments that Al-Muhanna did not give false testimony
and

that

it

answered

Interrogatory
22

No.

12

truthfully.

As

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 23 of 24

reflected above, our review of the record demonstrates that the
district

court’s

culpability

finding

was

not

made

in

clear

error. That finding is supported by the conflict between PMC’s
deposition testimony and PMC’s answer to Interrogatory No. 12,
and the emails of June 3, 2009, August 31, 2009, and May 18,
2010.
PMC also asserts in a single sentence, without citation to
the record or to any authority, that neither DynCorp nor the
judicial process suffered prejudice because DynCorp received all
relevant documents before the trial date. PMC does not address,
however, the fact that many of these documents were produced
long after the close of discovery—through and including the day
before trial—depriving DynCorp of the opportunity to effectively
depose

PMC’s

Rule

30(b)(6)

representatives

and

to

conduct

effective discovery and adequately prepare for trial. In any
event, by failing to support its contentions “with citations to
the authorities and parts of the record on which [it] relies,”
PMC has waived this argument. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); see
also Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607
(4th Cir. 2009).
PMC last posits that other, lesser sanctions could have
remedied the prejudice to DynCorp and that public policy favors
deciding cases on the merits. While it is true that we recognize
23

Appeal: 12-2241

Doc: 31

Filed: 11/05/2013

Pg: 24 of 24

a “strong policy that cases be decided on the merits,” Shaffer,
11 F.3d at 462, we also recognize “the need to preserve the
integrity of the judicial process in order to retain confidence
that the process works to uncover the truth.” Silvestri v. Gen.
Motors

Corp.,

271

F.3d

583,

590

(4th

Cir.

2001)

(emphasis

added). The district court found that PMC intentionally acted
throughout the pre-trial process to hide the truth from both
DynCorp and from the court. And the district court first imposed
lesser sanctions, but later found that those lesser sanctions
did not alleviate the prejudice caused by PMC. Accordingly, PMC
has not demonstrated that the district court here abused its
discretion.
For

the

above

reasons,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

dismissal of PMC’s case against DynCorp as a sanction for its
discovery malfeasance.

IV.
For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.

24