PHC Castor N.V. v. Stewart
Filing
90
ORDER finding as moot 70 Motion to Quash; granting 77 Motion to Compel; granting 82 Motion to Compel; denying without prejudice 82 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 9/20/13. (Nichols, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
PHC CASTOR N.V.,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM P. STEWART, III,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 3:12CV445(RNC)
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff PHC Castor N.V. brings this diversity action
alleging that pro se defendant William P. Stewart, III defaulted
on debt obligations.
District Judge Robert N. Chatigny referred
the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters.
(Doc.
#26.)
In June 2013, after a hearing, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for prejudgment remedy and for disclosure of
assets and set a deadline of July 10, 2013 for plaintiff to take
defendant's deposition.
On June 27, after defendant did not
respond to plaintiff's attempts to set a mutually convenient
date, plaintiff noticed the deposition for July 10 and included
a subpoena duces tecum.
On July 8, defendant filed a Motion to
Quash or Limit the subpoena.
(Doc. #70.)
In response,
plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel compliance with the notice
and subpoena.
(Doc. #77.)
The parties conferred prior to a telephone conference with
1
the court on July 10.
Plaintiff agreed to limit certain
discovery requests to resolve the dispute, and defendant offered
August 14 for a deposition date.
The parties reported this
agreement during the telephone conference.
The court ordered
the parties to make a status report on July 29 and extended the
discovery deadline to August 30.
(Doc. #74.)
On July 29, plaintiff's counsel made a status report to
chambers.
He suggested that defendant's Motion to Quash was
moot based on plaintiff's agreement to limit certain discovery
requests but indicated that he had not been able to confirm this
with defendant.
Counsel suspected that defendant's mailing
address was not current.
After confirming that defendant had
indeed moved, the court updated his mailing address,1 re-mailed
the July 10 orders setting discovery deadlines, and ordered the
parties to file a joint status report by August 2.
#80.)
(Docs. #79,
On August 2, plaintiff's counsel filed a unilateral
status report because defendant did not respond when invited to
join the status report.
(Doc. #81.)
On August 9, plaintiff filed a second Motion to Compel and
for Sanctions (doc. #82) stating that defendant refused to
attend the deposition on August 14.
(Doc. #84-9.)
The parties
filed a joint status report on August 13 indicating that the
1
Defendant included his updated address in his July 8 Motion
to Quash (doc. #70) but did not alert the court of the change as
required. See Local Civil Rule 83.1(c)(2).
2
issue remained unresolved.
After oral argument on the pending motions on September 19,
2013, the court orders as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Quash (doc. #70) is denied as moot
based on the parties' agreement to limit the subpoena as set
forth on the record in open court.
2. Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (docs. #77, #82) are
granted as follows.
Defendant's deposition shall be taken on
September 30, 2013, in the East Courtroom, 450 Main St.,
Hartford, CT.
Defendant shall produce relevant documents in his
possession, custody or control pursuant to the parties'
agreement as set forth on the record in open court.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (doc. #82) is denied
without prejudice.
Defendant is on notice that his pro se
status does not relieve him of his obligation to obey court
orders, and failure to comply with court orders and his
obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local Civil Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions,
including monetary sanctions or a default judgment against him.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; McDonald v. Head Criminal Court
Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988).
4. The pro se defendant shall advise opposing counsel and
the court of any change of residential address, office address,
email address or phone number within 48 hours of the change.
3
5. The settlement conference set for October 9, 2013 shall
proceed as scheduled.
The related deadlines set forth in the
court's settlement conference scheduling order (doc. #75) remain
in effect.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 20th day of
September, 2013.
_________/s/___________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?