Securities & Exchange Commission v. Williams et al
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
JERRY S. WILLIAMS,
MONK'S DEN LLC and
FIRST IN AWARENESS, LLC,
CASE NO. 3:12cv1068(RNC)
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
The plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission, brings
("Wiiliams"), alleging that he violated the Securities Act of 1933,
Advisers Act of 1940. The defendant Williams is proceeding pro se.
On February 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel.1
The plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant
In the event the defendant fails to obey such an
order, the plaintiff asks that default judgment be entered against
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
On February 28, 2013, Judge Chatigny referred the motion to
the undersigned. (Doc. #29.)
provide sufficient grounds to deny the motion.")
The court rules
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.
motion to compel the defendant to provide initial disclosures is
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."
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
responses to the interrogatories 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
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.
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.
"When they flout that obligation they, like all litigants,
must suffer the consequences of their actions." Id.
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.
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;
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."
Bobal v. Rensselaer
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
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 2nd day of April,
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in
(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).
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?