Palma et al v. Target Corporation
Filing
17
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Defendant's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres on 9/27/2018. See attached document for full details. (js02)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 18-21579-Civ-SCOLA/TORRES
TERESA PALMA and
ROLANDO PALMA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
This matter is before the Court on Target Corporation’s (“Defendant”) motion
for sanctions against Teresa Palm and Rolando Palma (“Plaintiffs”).
[D.E. 13].
Plaintiffs responded on September 9, 2018 [D.E. 15] to which Defendant replied on
September 13, 2018.
disposition.
[D.E. 16].
Therefore, Defendant’s motion is now ripe for
After careful consideration of the motion, response, reply, relevant
authority, and for the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
I.
ANALYSIS
Defendant’s motion seeks sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for failing to comply with the Court’s Discovery Order
dated August 7, 2018. [D.E. 12]. Defendant served Plaintiffs with its first set of
interrogatories and request for production on February 1, 2018. Plaintiffs’ discovery
1
responses were due on March 1, 2018.
After several delays and requests for
extensions of time, Plaintiffs served their discovery responses on May 14, 2018.
Plaintiffs failed to attach any documents to their response and only provided partial
responses to Defendant’s requests. Defendant attempted to confer with Plaintiffs to
acquire a more complete response, but the requested materials were never
produced. At a discovery hearing on August 3, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s
motion to compel in its entirety and ordered Plaintiffs to (1) serve better responses
to Defendant’s requests for production, (2) execute the authorizations that were
attached to the request for production, (3) produce a scooter to Defendant for
inspection, (4) identify the scooter’s last known address and other pertinent
information, and (5) provide dates for Plaintiff’s deposition so that it may be
scheduled on or before September 14, 2018.
To date, Plaintiffs have not provided any of the requested information despite
the Court’s warning that Plaintiffs’ failure may result in Rule 37 sanctions,
including dismissal of this action with prejudice. Defendant claims that Plaintiffs’
complete failure to comply with the Court’s Discovery Order and to serve responses
is substantially delaying the progress of this case.
Defendant also argues that
Plaintiffs’ actions are making it increasingly difficult to meet the Court’s Scheduling
deadlines, including the trial date set for May 13, 2019.
Therefore, Defendant
requests that this action be dismissed with prejudice and that Defendant be
awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in its efforts to acquire Plaintiffs’
discovery responses.
2
Plaintiffs’ response is that “Defendant’s [m]otion for [s]anctions is well
taken,” because Plaintiffs have not complied with the Court’s Discovery Order.
[D.E. 15]. Plaintiffs argue, however, that the relief Defendant requests (i.e. the
dismissal of this case) is extraordinary and that Plaintiffs’ counsel will secure the
requested documents when he meets with Plaintiffs on September 14, 2018. While
Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendant may be frustrated with their failure to
respond to Defendant’s discovery requests, Plaintiffs conclude that a sanctions
award is unnecessary because trial is more than nine months away.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) permits the court broad authority in
sanctioning a party for failure to comply with a court order to provide discovery,
including dismissing an action with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); see also
Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’n, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999).
District
courts have broad discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions for violations of
discovery orders. See Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542
(11th Cir. 1993). However, because dismissal of an action is a drastic sanction, a
district court may implement it only as a last resort, when a party’s failure to
comply with a court order is a result of willfulness or bad faith and
lesser sanctions will not suffice. See United States v. One 32’ Scorpion Go-Fast
Vessel, 339 F. App’x 903, 905 (11th Cir. 2009); Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542.
Based on a review of the record presented, we agree with Defendant that
Plaintiffs’ conduct is unacceptable and that the discovery requested should have
been provided long ago. Plaintiffs concede that they violated the Court’s Discovery
3
Order – that was issued on August 7, 2018 – and failed to produce any of the
requested documents, including the scheduling of Teresa Palma’s deposition by the
September 14, 2018 deadline. And despite Plaintiffs’ counsel contention that he
plans to meet with his clients on September 14, 2018, Plaintiffs provided no date in
their response as to when Defendants may be in receipt of the items requested.
Making matters worse, neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel explain why they have
not produced any of the items requested (after they were requested more than seven
months ago), some of which should be readily available.1 Therefore, Defendant’s
motion for sanctions is well taken because Plaintiffs have repeatedly failed to meet
their discovery obligations and concede that they have not complied with any
portion of the Court’s Discovery Order.
Defendant requests that this case be dismissed with prejudice, but that
sanction should only be used as a last resort. This does not mean, however, that
Plaintiffs’ conduct does not warrant sanctions. Instead, Plaintiffs are directed to
provide a check payable to Defendant in the amount of $750 for Defendant’s costs in
filing its motion for sanctions within seven (7) days from the date of this Order and
all objections in their response to Defendant’s discovery requests are deemed
waived. See Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 2008 WL
11335100, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2008) (holding that defendant waived its
objections, including those based on privilege, when it failed to respond
Some of the items that should be readily available for discovery include the
authorization that was attached to Defendant’s request for production, the scooter,
and its last known location.
4
1
to discovery requests
timely
and
failed
to
provide
good
cause
for
its
actions); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Core Carriers, Inc., 2008 WL 2414041, at *2 (M.D. Fla.
June 11, 2008) (“Plaintiff has provided the Court with no reasons (much less good
cause) for its failure to file timely objections to Defendant's discovery requests.
Accordingly, although the Court finds Plaintiff's objections compelling, Plaintiff
waived any objections to the discovery requests.”). If Plaintiffs fail to comply with
this Order, the Court shall recommend that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
To this extent, Defendant’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED. As for Defendant’s
request that this action be dismissed with prejudice, Defendant’s motion is
DENIED with leave to renew if Plaintiffs fail to comply with this Order.
II.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Defendant’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
[D.E. 13]. Plaintiffs are directed to provide a check payable to Defendant in the
amount of $750 within seven (7) days from the date of this Order and all objections
in their response to Defendant’s discovery requests are deemed waived.2
If
Plaintiffs fail to comply with any of the requirements set forth above, the Court
shall recommend that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
To this extent,
Defendant’s motion for sanctions is GRANTED. As for Defendant’s request that
this action be dismissed, Defendant’s motion is DENIED with leave to renew if
Plaintiffs fail to comply with this Order.
The funds must derive from Plaintiffs and not from counsel. All discovery
due under this Order must be served by no later than October 4, 2018.
5
2
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of
September, 2018.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
6
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?