Maida et al v. Sherman et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting 37 Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions 37 to the extent set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 11/19/08. (bkp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DOMINICK MAIDA, ET AL. vs. NO. 4:07CV001151 BSM DEFENDANTS ORDER On November 14, 2008, the court held a hearing on its order to show cause. Plaintiffs appeared in person and by counsel, Perry Young, and defendant Samantha Sherman appeared pro se. Also appearing but not participating were separate co-defendant Jerry Johnson and his counsel, Clifford Sward and Kathy Hall. Having heard argument by plaintiffs' counsel and from Samantha Sherman, the court orders as follows: 1. Defendants Samantha Sherman, Joe Vincent II, James Sherman, VGRT, Inc., and the Vision ("Sherman defendants") are in violation of the court's order of August 2, 2008, directing defendants to produce discovery requested by plaintiffs. 2. The Sherman defendants shall have ten days, or until December 1, 2008, to fully and truthfully respond to plaintiffs' discovery requests first served on June 6, 2008. 3. Plaintiffs' motion for contempt and for discovery sanctions (Doc. No. 37) is granted to the extent that plaintiffs are awarded $1050.00 in attorney's fees and $120.00 in costs. The Sherman defendants shall pay the $1,170.00 to plaintiffs' counsel within ten business days of the date of the hearing, or by December 1, 2008. 4. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this order on the Sherman defendants and file an PLAINTIFFS SAMANTHA SHERMAN, ET AL. affidavit of service. Failure of the Sherman defendants to comply with this order may result in the imposition of additional sanctions. Accordingly, the motion for contempt and for discovery sanctions (Doc. No. 37) is granted to the extent set forth above. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2008. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?