CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, AS SUBROGEE OF WILLIAM MAGEE v. LC ELECTRONICS, USA, INC. et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 64 Motion for Sanctions or Entry of Default Judgment. If Defendants fail to timely respond and/or fail to provide adequate answers to Plaintiff's second set of interrogatories, they will be subject to sanctions. In addition, if Defendants fail to submit their expert reports by March 23, 2012, they will be precluded from relying on their experts for any purpose, including summary judgment or trial. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 3/1/2012. (SMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF )
THE MIDWEST, an Indiana Corporation, as )
)
Subrogee of William Magee,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LG ELECTRONICS, USA, INC., a New
Jersey Corporation, and SEARS ROEBUCK )
& COMPANY, a New York Corporation, )
)
Defendants.

3:11-cv-40-RLY-WGH

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OR ENTRY OF A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO FRCP 37
In this case, Plaintiff has sought relevant information about the refrigerator that
allegedly caused the fire to the home of William Magee, Plaintiff’s subrogor, in
Oldenburg, Indiana. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not been forthcoming with
the most basic information – such as who designed the refrigerator and whether
Defendants had received any other complaints or claims related to fires caused by
refrigerators – requested in its set of interrogatories and requests for production of
documents. Consequently, according to Plaintiff, Defendants’ dilatory tactics have
prompted Plaintiff to file three motions to compel, (see Docket ## 26, 33, 38), and the
court to issue two Orders regarding the same on September 2, 2011, and December 7,
2011, (see Docket ## 29, 60). Moreover, despite the December 7, 2011 Order,

1

Defendants did not timely respond to Plaintiff’s discovery, and did not designate the
required Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deponents by January 8, 2012. Instead,
those responses came three weeks later. Plaintiff also complains that Defendants have not
submitted expert reports from its causation and liability witnesses, as required by the
parties’ Case Management Plan. For these transgressions, Plaintiff asks the court to
either sanction Defendants or enter a default judgment against them pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A).
Rather than issue sanctions, the court will grant the Defendants one last pass. If
Defendants fail to timely respond and/or fail to provide adequate answers to Plaintiff’s
second set of interrogatories, they will be subject to sanctions. If Defendants violate
another court Order by failing to timely answer Plaintiff’s discovery requests, they will be
subject to sanctions. In addition, if Defendants fail to submit their expert reports by
March 23, 2012, they will be precluded from relying on their experts for any purpose,
including summary judgment or trial. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions or Entry of a
Default Judgment Against Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37
(Docket # 64) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of March 2012.
__________________________________
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
United States YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
RICHARD L. District Court
Southern District of Indiana
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

2

Electronic Copies to:
Michael J. Black
BLACK & MOSS, P.C.
[e-mail]
Stephen M. Brandenburg
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
[e-mail]
Cecilio L. Franco IV
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
[e-mail]
Edward W. Hearn
JOHNSON & BELL
[e-mail]
Mickey J. Lee
STEWART & IRWIN P.C.
[e-mail]
Mary F. Schmid
STEWART & IRWIN
[e-mail]

3