Hansen v. State of Illinois et al
Filing
60
OPINION Entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 05/28/2019. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (d/e 58 ) and Defendants' Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions (d/e 59 ) are ALLOWED. This case is dismissed with prejudice. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 29 May, 2019 05:03:49 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
STEWART J. HANSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 17-cv-3256
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions (d/e 58) (Motion 58) and Defendants’ Second Motion for
Discovery Sanctions (d/e 59) (Motion 59) (collectively Motions). The
parties consented to proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of
Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and Reference Order
entered May 24, 2018 (d/e 16). Defendants ask the Court to dismiss this
case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear at duly noticed
times and places to be deposed. Plaintiff is also presumed not to oppose
the Motion because he has not responded to either Motion within 14 days
of service. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is GRANTED.
Page 1 of 5
On August 16, 2018, this Court conducted a scheduling conference
with the parties. This Court personally told Plaintiff at that hearing that he
had to agree to be deposed if he wanted to litigate his claims in this case.
Minute Entry entered August 16, 2018. This Court set July 1, 2019 as a
deadline for the completion of discovery. Scheduling Order entered August
16, 2018 (d/e 36).
On February 25, 2019, Defendants sent Plaintiff a notice of
deposition setting Plaintiff’s deposition on March 26, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. at
Defense counsel’s offices in Springfield, Illinois. Defense counsel sent the
notice to the two addresses Plaintiff has provided to the Court: Helping
Hands Springfield, 1023 E. Washington St., Springfield, Illinois; and
Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC), 221 North 11th Street,
Springfield, Illinois. See Temporary Change of Address (d/e 26) (Helping
Hands Address); Temporary Change of Address (d/e 49) (ARC). Motion
58, Exhibits A and B, Notices of Deposition. Defense counsel contacted
the clerk at Helping Hands who confirmed that Plaintiff picked up his mail
weekly at that address. Motion 58, ¶ 6. Plaintiff did not appear on March
26, 2019 for his deposition and did not contact Defendants or the Court
regarding his failure to attend. Motion 58, Exhibit C, Record of NonAppearance.
Page 2 of 5
On March 26, 2019, after Plaintiff failed to appear, Defense counsel
succeeded in speaking with Plaintiff at approximately 10:36 a.m. Plaintiff
stated that he would not appear. Plaintiff denied receiving the notices of
deposition. Plaintiff and Defense counsel agreed to reschedule Plaintiff’s
deposition for May 8, 2019. Motion 59, ¶ 9; see Motion 58, Exhibit C,
Notice of Non-Appearance, at 4.
On April 5, 2019, Defendants sent a new notice of deposition to
Plaintiff setting his deposition for May 8, 2019, as previously agreed.
Defense counsel again sent the notice of deposition to both the Helping
Hands address and the ARC address. Motion 59, Exhibits D and E,
Notices of Deposition. Plaintiff again failed to appear for his deposition.
Defendants have repeatedly set Plaintiff’s deposition and Plaintiff has
repeatedly failed to appear. The Court told Plaintiff that he had to be
deposed to pursue this case. He failed to do so. Plaintiff personally
agreed to appear on May 8, 2019 but did not. The Court finds that Plaintiff
has willfully refused to participate in discovery in this case. Dismissal may
be an appropriate sanction for such willfulness. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(v);
National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639,
640 (1976).
Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff, further, has failed to respond to the Motions. The failure
creates a presumption that Plaintiff has no opposition to the Motions. Local
Rule 7.1(B)(2). The failure also demonstrates to the Court that Plaintiff has
decided not to pursue this matter. Plaintiff vigorously pursued this claim for
several months. Plaintiff requested and the Court allowed Plaintiff to file
electronically. Text Order entered June 11, 2018. Plaintiff filed many
motions and responses to defense motions. See e.g., Motion for Default
Judgment (d/e 4); Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 7); Response to
Motion to Dismiss (d/e 14); Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 18);
Responses and Objections to Defendants’ Motions to Stay (d/e 27 and 30);
Motion for Sanctions (d/e 31); Motion for Sanctions (d/e 37); Motion for
Sanctions (d/e 43); First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
Proposed Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 46 and 47); First Motion for
Full Summary Judgment (d/e 50); Reply to Responses to Motions for
Summary Judgment (d/e 56). Plaintiff filed additional motions not listed.
Plaintiff clearly knows how to respond to a motion. His failure to respond to
these Motions further supports the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff has
willfully decided not to participate in discovery in this case.
The sanction for Plaintiff’s willful refusal to participate in discovery
must be proportional to the circumstances of the case. Collins v. Illinois,
Page 4 of 5
554 F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2009). After careful consideration of the
Motions, the Court finds that dismissal is a proportionate sanction in this
case. The Court personally told Plaintiff he had to be deposed to pursue
this case. The Defendants cannot proceed without that deposition. The
Defendants need to know Plaintiff’s side of the story and his interpretation
of relevant documents, particularly documents written by Plaintiff, to
prepare a motion for summary judgment or to prepare for trial. Plaintiff has
failed to appear twice for deposition. Plaintiff further has not responded to
Defendants’ Motions. Plaintiff is refusing to participate in this case and his
refusal denies Defendants the opportunity to prepare a defense. Under
these circumstances in this case, the Court finds that dismissal is the
proportional and appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s willfulness.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions (d/e 58) and Defendants’ Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions
(d/e 59) are ALLOWED. This case is dismissed with prejudice.
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
ENTER: May 28, 2019
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
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?