Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers National Pensionfund; Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers National Colafund; Board of Trustees, National Stabilization Agreementof Sheet Metal Industry Trust Fund; Board of Trustees,national Training Fund for the Sheet Metal and Airconditioning Industry; Board of Trustees, National Energymanagement Institute Committee; Board of Trustees, Sheetmetal Occupational Health Institution Trust; Board Oftrustees, Florence Carlough Scholarship Fund, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Thomas L. Kelly, Defendant-appellant,and Waterbury Roofing Company, Incorporated, Defendant, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992)

Thomas Kelly appeals the district court's order striking his pleadings and entering judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in this ERISA action. The district court's order was based on Kelly's repeated refusal to appear at a discovery deposition after warnings of the consequences of this course of action. Finding no error, we affirm.

If a party refuses to appear at a deposition or otherwise comply with discovery, the court may strike the party's pleadings, enter a default judgment against the party, and impose monetary sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (2) (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). The court's entry of judgment against a party for failure to comply with discovery is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976). Entry of judgment against an uncooperative party is warranted if the party refused to comply with court orders and the opposing party is prejudiced as a result of the failure to cooperate. Snead v. Automation

Indus., Inc., 102 F.R.D. 823 (D. Md.), aff'd, No. 84-1048 (4th Cir. May 3, 1984) (unpublished).

In this case, the district court ordered Kelly to appear at a deposition and warned him that failure to comply with discovery could result in sanctions, including the striking of his pleadings and entry of judgment against him. Kelly failed to heed these warnings and repeatedly refused to be deposed. Further, the Plaintiffs were certainly biased by Kelly's refusal to be deposed, both in their inability to obtain crucial information for trial without deposing Kelly, and in the additional attorney's fees they incurred in attempting to gain Kelly's compliance with discovery. Finally, Kelly's refusal to be deposed was not based on any legally justifiable reason. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Kelly's pleadings and entering judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.^* 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED