Bruin v. White et al

Filing 173

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 3/30/2021. Denying 167 Motion for Sanctions. cc: Counsel, plaintiff pro se(KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-00105-TBR
BRANDON R. BRUIN

PLAINTIFF

v.
WHITE, et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Before the Court is Brandon R. Bruin’s Motion for Sanctions. [DN 167]. Defendants
responded. [DN 168]. Bruin did not file a reply, but the time to do so has passed. Thus, the
motion is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
I.

Background
Bruin brought a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)

asking for sanctions against the defendants for failing to comply with the Court’s order to
complete and submit a pretrial memorandum. [DN 167 at 1]. Bruin sets out that the Court
granted the defendants multiple extensions to file a pretrial memorandum, and they failed to do
so by the August 5, 2020 deadline. Id. at 1-2. Defendants responded, arguing that Bruin’s motion
should be denied. [DN 168]. Defendants argue that because they timely filed a motion for
summary judgment in lieu of a pretrial memorandum, as permitted by the Court, they did not fail
to comply with any court order or run afoul of Rule 37(b). Id.
II.

Discussion
The Court agrees with the defendants. Bruin’s argument fails. The defendants Bruin

moves against met their deadline to file dispositive motions OR a pretrial memorandum by
August 5, 2020. [DN 162]. They filed a dispositive motion—a motion for summary judgment—
on August 5, 2020. [DN 163]. Therefore, Bruin’s motion is denied.
1

III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Motion for Sanctions, DN 167, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 30, 2021

cc: counsel
Brandon R. Bruin, pro se
240651
Little Sandy Correctional Complex
505 Prison Connector
Sandy Hook, Kentucky 41171
2