Capps v. Drake et al

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING 56 MOTION for Sanctions for Discovery Violations filed by Isaac W Capps. ORDER GRANTING 82 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to file Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, First MOTION for Extension of Time to Fil e Response/Reply. Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time, up to and including September 25, 2015, to file a dispositive motion. Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time, up to and including October 5, 2015, to file his consolidated response to 75 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 84 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and 71 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE to file a 30-page consolidated response brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 9/22/2015. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ISAAC W. CAPPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN DRAKE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-441-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion for Discovery Sanctions filed by Plaintiff,
Isaac W. Capps, on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 56) and the Second Motion for Extension of Time to File
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and First Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 82). For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED and the Motion for Extension of Time is
GRANTED.
Plaintiff asks the Court to impose discovery sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 against Defendants Kevin Roye and Brice Shaffer due to their failure to comply with
various discovery orders in this matter.
Pursuant to the Scheduling and Discovery Order for this matter, the parties were to serve
initial interrogatories and requests to produce by March 20, 2015 and discovery was to be
completed by June 5, 2015 (Doc. 29)1. In compliance with said Order, counsel for Plaintiff
served interrogatories, requests to admit, and requests for production of documents on Defendants
1

Pursuant to the Court’s Order on April 27, 2015 (Doc. 49), the discovery deadline in this matter
was continued to July 31, 2015.
Page 1 of 5

Roye and Shaffer on March 13, 2015 (See Doc. 39). On April 13, 2015, the Court granted
Defendants Roye and Shaffer’s request to extend their deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s written
discovery requests, allowing them until April 17, 2015 to respond (Doc. 41). Defendants Roye
and Shaffer timely filed their responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions (Doc. 42).
However, Defendants Roye and Shaffer failed to provide Plaintiff with responses to his requests
for production of documents and interrogatories by this date. Despite Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain
these Defendants’ overdue discovery responses in May, 2015, Defendants failed to correct their
neglect. Subsequently, on June 1, 2015, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties to
discuss Defendant Roye and Shaffer’s overdue responses. Preceding the conference, counsel for
Defendants emailed their interrogatory responses to counsel for Plaintiff; however, counsel for
Defendants merely indicated that all of the documents within their possession were produced with
their initial Rule 26(a) disclosures (See Doc. 56-7). Being advised that Defendants had provided
their interrogatory responses, and noting that their responses to Plaintiff’s request for documents
were not sufficient under Rule 33, the Court ordered Defendants to provide responses to Plaintiff’s
requests for production of documents by June 5, 2015. A dispute arose concerning the manner in
which the documents were to be produced and Defendants were ordered to provide Plaintiff’s
counsel with hard copies of the documents by June 15, 2015. Plaintiff finally received the
requested documents on June 11, 2015 (Doc. 56, ¶ 26).
Plaintiff contends that Defendants Roye and Shaffer’s delay in responding to written
discovery caused additional delays in Plaintiff’s ability to schedule depositions of Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to sanction Defendants Roye and Shaffer and/or their counsel
by way of striking their affirmative defenses and ordering them to pay reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, caused by their failures, in the amount of $4,270.00. Defendants filed
Page 2 of 5

their response to Plaintiff’s motion beyond the prescribed fourteen-day timeframe (Doc. 59).
However, the Court will consider Defendants’ response, and Plaintiff’s reply thereto (Doc. 62), in
the interest of justice.
Defendants contend that sanctions are not appropriate as Plaintiff has received all of
Defendants’ discovery responses and there has been no prejudice to other parties in this suit, nor
any effect on the merits of Plaintiff’s case, due to their delay in providing discovery responses.
Although the Court acknowledges that Defendants Roye and Shaffer were delayed in
providing their responses to written discovery, the imposition of sanctions is not warranted.
Importantly, if a court imposes discovery sanctions, such sanctions must be “proportionate to the
circumstances surrounding the failure to comply with discovery rules.” Rice v. City of Chicago,
333 F.3d 780, 784 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Melendez v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 79 F.3d 661, 672 (7th
Cir. 1996)).

“Indeed, the power to impose sanctions should ‘be exercised with great caution.”

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). Rule 37 sanctions may only be imposed where a
party displays “willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Langley by Langley v. Union Elec. Co., 107 F.3d
510, 514 (7th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). In analyzing what sanctions may be appropriate,
courts should consider “the frequency and magnitude of the [party’s] failure to comply with court
deadlines, the effect of these failures on the court’s time and schedules, the prejudice to other
litigants, and the possible merits of the plaintiff’s suit.” Williams v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 155
F.3d 853, 857 (7th Cir. 1998).
The Court has reviewed the record in this matter and does not find that Defendants’ delays
were of the frequency or magnitude to warrant sanctions. While it is apparent that Defendants
Roye and Shaffer failed to respond within the prescribed timeframe to Plaintiff’s interrogatories
and requests for production of documents, Defendants followed the Court’s Orders and, although
Page 3 of 5

beyond the prescribed time period, provided responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production by
June 5, 2015 and provided hard copies of their discovery responses by June 11, 2015 (See Doc. 53,
ordering Defendants Roye and Shaffer to provide responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production
of documents by June 5, 2015 and Doc. 55 ordering Defendants Roye and Shaffer to furnish paper
copies of their discovery responses to Plaintiff by June 15, 2015). Moreover, the Court does not
find that any party suffered prejudice due to Defendants’ delays. While Plaintiff complains that
Defendants’ delays caused depositions to be put on hold and/or rescheduled, such inconveniences
do not establish prejudice sufficient to warrant sanctions, as it appears that all the depositions
sought by Plaintiff were rescheduled prior to the close of discovery.
While the Court does not find that Defendants Roye and Shaffer’s conduct in this matter
warrants formal sanctions, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion for extension of
time to file his summary judgment motion and motion for extension of time to respond to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 82). Although the Court notes Defendant
Trogolo’s objections to granting such extensions, due to the discovery issues in this matter, good
cause exists to allow Plaintiff additional time to file his motion for summary judgment.
Moreover, the Court finds that granting Plaintiff an extension of time to file a consolidated
response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment is in the interest of judicial economy.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time, up to and including September 25,
2015, to file his motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is GRANTED an extension of time, up
to and including October 5, 2015, to file a consolidated response to Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment (see Docs. 71, 75, and 84). Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE to file a 30-page
consolidated response brief.

Page 4 of 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 22, 2015
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5