Securities & Exchange Commission v. Williams et al

Filing 31

ORDER: The plaintiff's motion 25 to compel the defendant to provide initial disclosures and responses to interrogatories is granted. The plaintiff's motion for contingent sanctions 25 is denied without prejudice. See attached ruling, 4 pages. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 4/2/13. (Constantine, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
V.
JERRY S. WILLIAMS,
MONK'S DEN LLC and
FIRST IN AWARENESS, LLC,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:12cv1068(RNC)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
The plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission, brings
this

action

against,

inter

alia,

defendant

Jerry

Williams

("Wiiliams"), alleging that he violated the Securities Act of 1933,
the Securities

and

Exchange

Act

of

1934,

and

the

Investment

Advisers Act of 1940. The defendant Williams is proceeding pro se.
On February 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel.1
(Doc. #25.)
Williams

to

The plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant
provide

interrogatories.

initial

disclosures

and

responses

to

In the event the defendant fails to obey such an

order, the plaintiff asks that default judgment be entered against
the defendant.

Despite notice, the defendant has not responded to

the plaintiff's motion.

See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(a) ("Failure to

submit a memorandum in opposition to a motion may be deemed
sufficient cause to grant the motion, except where the pleadings

1

On February 28, 2013, Judge Chatigny referred the motion to
the undersigned. (Doc. #29.)

provide sufficient grounds to deny the motion.")

The court rules

as follows:
A.

Initial Disclosures
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C), "[a] party must make

initial disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties' Rule
26(f)conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or
court order . . . ."

On December 11, 2012, the court conducted a

conference call to discuss the parties' Rule 26(f) report and
thereafter entered a scheduling order.

(Doc. #22, 23.)

the defendant has not made initial disclosures.

To date,

The plaintiff's

motion to compel the defendant to provide initial disclosures is
granted.

Pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(d), the defendant's

"compliance with [the court's order] shall be made within fourteen
(14) days of the filing of the Court's order."
B.

Interrogatories
The plaintiff served the defendant with interrogatories on

December 18, 2012.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), "[t]he

responding party must serve its answers and any objections within
30 days after being served with the interrogatories." To date, the
defendant
plaintiff's

has

not

motion

responded
to

compel

to

the

interrogatories.

the

defendant

responses to the interrogatories is granted.

to

serve

The
written

Pursuant to D. Conn.

L. Civ. R. 37(d), the defendant's "compliance with [the court's
order] shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the

2

Court's order."
C.

Sanctions
The plaintiff next seeks an order that default judgment shall

enter against the defendant if he fails to meet the above deadline.
The defendant's motion for "contingent sanctions" is denied without
prejudice as premature.
Although

the

court

affords

special

solitude

to

parties

appearing pro se, see Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470
F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir.2006), "all litigants, including pro ses,
have an obligation to comply with court orders."

McDonald v. Head

Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir.
1988).

"When they flout that obligation they, like all litigants,

must suffer the consequences of their actions." Id.

See Bambu

Sales v. Ozak Trading, 58 F.3d 849, 854 (2d Cir. 1995)("[D]iscovery
orders are meant to be followed.
does so at its peril.")

A party who flouts such orders

A district court may sanction a party who

fails to comply with a discovery order of that court, including
entering default judgment.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)2.

2

"[P]ro

Specifically, Rule 37(b)(2) provides, in pertinent part:
If a party or a party's officer, director, or managing .
. . fails to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery, . . . the court . . . may issue further just
orders. They may include the following:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or
other designated facts be taken as established for
purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from
introducing designated matters in evidence;
3

se litigants are not generally familiar with the procedures and
practices of the courts.

While they have no right to ignore or

violate court orders, they must nonetheless be made aware of the
possible consequences of their actions."
Polytechnic

Institute,

916

F.2d

759,

Bobal v. Rensselaer
764

(2d

Cir.

1990).

Accordingly, the defendant is cautioned that if he fails to comply
with this court's order to provide initial disclosures and respond
to plaintiff's December 18, 2013 interrogatories, the court may
impose sanctions, including default judgment and/or imposition of
reasonable expenses.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 2nd day of April,
2013.
_______________/s/____________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge

(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is
obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in
part; [or]
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient
party . . . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). Moreover, "[i]nstead of or in
addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient
party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the
reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the
failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Rule 37(b)(2)C).
4