Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 — Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Last verified: May 19, 2026 · U.S. Courts — FRCP.
Rule Text — Key Provisions
(a) Motion to compel. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling disclosure. The court must require the losing party to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.
(b) Failure to comply with court order. Sanctions include directing facts to be taken as established; prohibiting introduction of designated matters; striking pleadings; dismissing the action; rendering default judgment; or treating the failure as contempt.
(c) Failure to disclose. A party that fails to provide Rule 26(a) or 26(e) disclosures may not use the information at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.
(e) Spoliation — lost electronically stored information. If ESI that should have been preserved is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps, the court may: (1) order curative measures upon a finding of prejudice; or (2) upon a finding of intent to deprive, presume the information was unfavorable, instruct the jury accordingly, or dismiss the action.
Full text: law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_37.
Plain English
Rule 37 is the federal courts’ discovery enforcement mechanism. The ladder escalates: motion to compel → failure to obey compel order → severe sanctions → spoliation. Spoliation under 37(e) is where many corporate clients lose cases without the merits ever being decided.
Key Cases & Authority
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976) — Affirmed dismissal as a Rule 37 sanction for failure to answer interrogatories. Set the willfulness standard.
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980) — Rule 37 sanctions may include attorney’s fees; court must distinguish discovery sanctions from bad-faith sanctions under inherent authority.
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) — Landmark e-discovery and spoliation case. Established the duty to preserve electronic evidence when litigation is reasonably anticipated.
- Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal v. Banc of Am. Sec., 685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Judge Scheindlin) — Influential spoliation framework, partially modified by 2015 Rule 37(e) amendment.
- 2015 Amendment to Rule 37(e) — Created a uniform federal standard for ESI spoliation, replacing inconsistent circuit law. Adverse-inference instructions now require finding of intent to deprive.
Florida Parallel
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380 — tracks similar structure. Federal e-discovery sanctions under 37(e) are more harshly developed than Florida’s spoliation case law.
About this rule walkthrough
Part of The Federal Rule Book, hosted by John M. Phillips — Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, Court TV analyst, admitted in 8 states + 9 federal districts + SCOTUS.
Free consultation: (904) 444-4444 · About John Phillips
Educational only — not legal advice.
Rule Text (verbatim from the Florida Supreme Court)
(a) A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The court must require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion, the attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.
(b) If a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue sanctions including: directing facts to be taken as established; prohibiting introduction of designated matters; striking pleadings; dismissing the action; rendering default judgment; or treating the failure as contempt.
(c) A party that fails to provide Rule 26(a) or 26(e) disclosures may not use the information at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.
(e) Spoliation of ESI: if electronically stored information that should have been preserved is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps, the court may order curative measures (on finding of prejudice) or presume the information was unfavorable, instruct the jury accordingly, or dismiss the action (on finding of intent to deprive).
Educational reference. This page summarizes a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for educational purposes. It is not legal advice. Federal procedural rules can change — always verify the current text at uscourts.gov before relying on this summary in any case.
What this rule means in plain English
Rule 37 is the federal courts’ discovery enforcement mechanism. The ladder runs motion-to-compel → sanctions for failure to obey → severe sanctions including default. The Rule 37(e) spoliation rule is where many corporate clients lose cases without the merits ever being decided.