WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION v. RELIABLE LIMOUSINE SERVICE, LLC et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on 2/6/13. (lcesh1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
RELIABLE LIMOUSINE SERVICE, LLC et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 12cv576 (ESH)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon consideration of plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, defendants’ Motion to Defer
Ruling on the Motion for Sanctions, and plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion, the Court
will deny defendants’ motion and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), will grant plaintiff’s
motion and impose sanctions. 1
Defendants refused to obey the Court’s December 19, 2012 Order requiring that they
respond to outstanding discovery requests on or before January 2, 2013. Indeed, defendants
continue to withhold all requested discovery even though the final pretrial conference is
scheduled for March 7, 2013, and the trial is scheduled for March 20, 2013. In addition, as
documented by plaintiff’s motion, defendants have a history of defying court orders regarding
discovery (see Ex. 2-4 to Pl. Mot. [ECF No. 19]), and they have failed to provide any valid
reason or excuse for their defiance of this Court’s Order.
Nor have defendants offered any valid basis for deferring the Court’s ruling on the
sanctions motion. Defendants argue that the Court should defer ruling for thirty days because
1

Defendants have failed to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, and their time to do so
expired on February 4, 2013.

applications by two affiliates of defendants are currently pending in an administrative proceeding
before the plaintiff Commission and may be decided in the near future. However, even if the
Commission were to approve the applications, it would not excuse defendants’ failure to comply
with their discovery obligations and with this Court’s Order.
In addition, both plaintiff and the Court would be prejudiced by continuing the status quo,
insofar as the remedy plaintiff seeks is injunctive relief to prevent defendants from conducting an
unlicensed passenger transportation business, and trial is set to begin next month. More
importantly, further delay would serve to reward defendants’ contumacious conduct. Under
these circumstances, the imposition of any less severe sanction would not be appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court will deny defendants’ motion, grant plaintiff’s motion, and enter default
judgment for plaintiff. The Court will also award the requested fees set forth in the declaration
of counsel.
/s/
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
DATE: February 6, 2013

2