Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Bick et al
Filing
28
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.'s Motion for Default Judgment 24 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 04 March, 2016 03:17:37 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAMELA BICK, individually and )
d/b/a CITY LIMITS BAR &
)
GRILL, INC. d/b/a UPTOWN
)
CITY LIMITS BAR & GRILL;
)
and CITY LIMITS BAR &
)
GRILL, INC. d/b/a UPTOWN
)
LIMITS BAR & GRILL,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
PAMELA BICK and
)
CITY LIMITS BAR & GRILL, INC., )
)
Third Party Plaintiffs, )
)
v.
)
)
CASS COMMUNICATIONS
)
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
)
)
Third Party Defendant. )
)
No. 14-cv-3054
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions,
Inc.’s (“JHP”) Motion for Default Judgment (d/e 24) (Motion). For the reasons
set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
Page 1 of 6
JHP asks for a discovery sanction of a default judgment against
Defendants Pamela Bick, individually and d/b/a City Limits Bar & Grill, Inc.
d/b/a Uptown City Limits Bar & Grill; and City Limits Bar & Grill, Inc. d/b/a
Uptown City Limits Bar & Grill (collectively “Bick”) because Bick failed to
respond to JHP’s Notice to Produce documents and JHP’s Interrogatories,
and because Defendant Pamela Bick failed to appear at her deposition. The
Court may award sanctions up to entry of judgment if a party fails to attend
her own deposition or fails to respond to written discovery requests. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(d) and 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). See Motion, at 1-4.
The Court may sanction a party for failing to appear at her own
deposition and failing to respond to requests to produce and interrogatories.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1). A party seeking sanctions for failure to answer or
respond to written discovery must include a certification that the movant has
conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to act to secure an
answer or response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(B). JHP failed to meet its
obligation to attempt to secure responses and answers to its Notice to
Produce and Interrogatories.
On October 20, 2014, JHP served written discovery on Bick. The Court
notes that the discovery requests were untimely. A party may not commence
discovery until after the Rule 26(f) meeting. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) and
26(f). The Rule 26(f) meeting occurred in December 2015. See Report of
Page 2 of 6
Rule 26(F) Planning Meeting (d/e 17). On May 6, 2015, Bick’s counsel told
JHP’s counsel that Bick did not receive JHP’s written discovery requests.
JHP reserved the written discovery by email on May 22, 2015. Bick
responded to JHP’s requests to admit on June 25, 2015, but did not respond
to JHP’s Notice to Produce or Interrogatories until after JHP filed this Motion
on February 15, 2016. Bick served responses to the JHP’s Notice to Produce
and Interrogatories on February 16, 2016. Notice of Filing (d/e 25).
The Motion nowhere indicates that JHP made any inquiry about the
responses to its Notice to Produce or Interrogatories after May 2015. Under
these circumstances, JHP is not entitled to relief under Rule 37(d) for the late
responses to the Notice to Produce and Interrogatories. JHP has failed to
certify that it attempted in good faith to secure responses as required by Rule
37(d)(1)(B).
JHP also seeks a default judgment because Defendant Pamela Bick did
not appear at her deposition. JHP served a Notice of Deposition on
November 12, 2015. The Notice of Deposition set Pamela Bick’s deposition
on December 7, 2015. On December 3, 2015, Counsel for Pamela Bick
notified counsel for JHP that Pamela Bick was in Florida caring for a
terminally ill family member and could not attend the deposition on December
7, 2015. The letter stated that Pamela Bick, “will let me know when she
Page 3 of 6
returns to Illinois and we can promptly schedule her deposition.” Motion,
Exhibit I, Letter dated December 3, 2015.
Pamela Bick’s deposition has not been rescheduled. On January 29,
2016, counsel for JHP sent an email to counsel for Bick. The email stated in
relevant part:
I have left several messages for you regarding the deposition of
Ms. Bick, including today, and none of them have been returned.
You have failed to provide any dates for your client’s deposition . .
..
Motion, Exhibit J, Email dated January 26, 2016. JHP subsequently filed this
Motion on February 15, 2016.
Entry of judgment is a draconian sanction that is only appropriate in
cases involving willfulness, bad faith, or fault and when lesser sanctions
would not be sufficient. See In re Golant, 239 F.3d 931, 936 (7th Cir. 2002);
Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 467-68 (7th Cir. 2003). The term fault, for
purposes of discovery sanctions, “doesn't speak to the noncomplying party's
disposition at all, but rather only describes the reasonableness of the
conduct—or lack thereof—which eventually culminated in the violation.”
Marrocco v. General Motors Corporation, 966 F.2d 220, 224 (7th Cir. 1992).
JHP presents no evidence of willfulness or bad faith. At best, JHP has
raised a question of whether Bick was at fault for failing to contact JHP’s
counsel to reschedule the deposition. JHP’s evidence is too thin to establish
Page 4 of 6
that Bick’s actions were unreasonable under the circumstances. One email is
not sufficient in this context to provide the background information necessary
to show that Bick acted unreasonably. Even if Bick’s acted unreasonably,
JHP fails to establish that some lesser sanction would not be sufficient.
Under these circumstances, JHP’s request for a default judgment is denied.
This Court, however, “has broad discretion in reviewing discovery
disputes and ‘should independently determine the proper course of discovery
based on the arguments of the parties.’” United Consumer Club, Inc. v.
Prime Time Marketing Management, Inc., 271 F.R.D. 487, 499 (N.D. Ind.
2010) (quoting Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 1996)).
The deposition of Defendant Pamela Bick is clearly necessary to complete
discovery in this case. Therefore, the Court in its discretion directs Bick to
provide all parties on or before March 11, 2016, a written notice setting forth
three dates between March 15, 2016, and March 31, 2016 (Deposition
Dates), when Defendant Pamela Bick shall be available from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., central daylight savings time, to appear at the offices of counsel for
JHP in order to be deposed in this case. JHP shall serve a notice of
deposition in accordance with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, setting
Defendant Pamela Bick’s deposition at its counsel’s office on one of the
Deposition Dates. Defendant Pamela Bick shall appear at her deposition so
set and shall fully comply with the taking of her deposition at that time.
Page 5 of 6
If Defendant Pamela Bick fails to comply fully with this order, JHP may
renew its request for sanctions.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.’s Motion for Default
Judgment (d/e 24) is DENIED.
ENTER: March 4, 2016
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 6 of 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?