Auto P.I. Used Car Inspection, LLC v. Claus

Filing 13

ORDER stating that the defendant is directed to show cause within fourteen days why the Court should not impose sanctions against him because of his failure to participate in the Rule 26(f) conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 2/15/2012. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
AUTO P.I. USED CAR INSPECTION, )
LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)

Case No. CV411-288

)
STEVE CLAUS, d/b/a Automotive P.I.,

)
)
)

Defendant.

ORDER
Plaintiff Auto P.I. Used Car Inspections, LLC has filed a unilateral
Rule 26(f) report, stating that no Rule 26(f) conference was held because of
defendant’s failure to participate.
Rule 26(f) contemplates that the report be prepared after the parties
have conferred, and the rule places on the “attorneys of record and all
unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case” the joint

responsibility of arranging the conference and submitting the written report
outlining a proposed discovery plan. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (emphasis added).
Unilateral reports from one party are not allowed.
Our local practice requires that the conference be held within 20 days
after the filing of the last answer but no later than 45 days after the first
responsive pleading.

Unless the defendant is in state or federal custody 1 he is required to
participate in the Rule 26(f) conference. If defendant or any other party
refuses to do so, then upon proper notice of the other parties to the case the
Court will either dismiss the case for lack of prosecution or strike the
answer of the uncooperative party. The parties who are prepared to
conduct the Rule 26(f) conference and file the report may advise the Court
of their inability to do so because of the noncooperating party, but they may
not file a unilateral Rule 26(f) report. Defendant is directed to show cause
within 14 days why the Court should not impose sanctions against him
because of his failure to participate in the Rule 26(f) conference.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2012.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

1

Pro se prisoner actions are not subject to the Rule 26(f) conference requirement.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (exempting cases not subject to the initial disclosure
requirements including pro se prisoner actions per Rule 26(a)(1)(E)(iii)).
2