Jara et al v. Smart & K Construction LLC et al

Filing 36

ORDER : See attached order. The defendant's trial brief is due by 7/24/2012. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 7/19/12. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LUIS JARA, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
YAROSLAV KOHUT,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:09cv856(DFM)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On June 18, 2012, the court issued a pretrial order requiring
the parties to file a Joint Trial Memorandum by July 12, 2012.
(Doc. #33.)

The court's order explained in detail the information

the parties were required to include in the memorandum.

The order

specifically stated that "exhibits not listed will not be admissible
at trial without good cause shown."
On July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a trial memorandum but
indicated that "[d]espite several attempts by plaintiffs' counsel
to contact and communicate with the pro se defendant, Yaroslav
Kohut, including email and voice mail messages," plaintiffs have not
received any response.

(Doc. #34.)

As a result, the plaintiff's

trial brief only reflects the plaintiffs' proposed evidence.

To

date, the defendant has not filed a trial memorandum nor an
extension of time in which to do so. As a result of the defendant's
failure to comply with the court's order, the plaintiffs request
that the court enter default as to the defendant.

(Doc. #35.)

If a party fails to obey a court order, the court may impose
sanctions or take other action as appropriate.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f).

Such sanctions and action include assessing costs and

attorney's fees, deeming admitted certain facts at trial, precluding
evidence or defenses and/or granting judgment by default.

See Zak

v. Kenney, 197 F.R.D. 212, 213 (D. Conn. 2000) ("[A] defendant can
be defaulted for his failure to comply with court orders.").
"[W]hile pro se litigants may in general deserve more lenient
treatment

than

those

represented

by

counsel,

all

litigants,

including pro ses, have an obligation to comply with court orders.
When they flout that obligation they, like all litigants, must
suffer the consequences of their actions."

McDonald v. Head

Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988).
See Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publishing, Ltd., 843 F.2d 67, 73 (2d
Cir. 1988)("[a] party who flouts such orders does so at his peril").
At this juncture, the court declines to impose sanctions for
the defendant's failure to comply with the court's order and instead
permits the defendant an opportunity to comply.

The defendant is

ORDERED to contact plaintiffs' counsel and file a Joint Trial
Memorandum by July 24, 2012.

If the defendant fails to do so, he

may be prohibited from introducing evidence and/or objecting to the
plaintiffs' evidence.

Other sanctions also might be imposed.

SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 18th day of July,
2012.
_________/s/___________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge