Kennedy vs. Golden Corral Corp

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 24 Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff is ordered to provide Golden Corral with all due discovery documents by 1/20/12. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 1/13/2012. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
RHONDA KENNEDY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1152

VERUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

GOLDEN CORRAL CORPORATION

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Compel Plaintiff’s
Response to Discovery (Record Document 24) filed by Golden Corral Corporation (“Golden
Corral”). For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Response
to Discovery is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Plaintiff Rhonda Kennedy (“Kennedy”) filed a complaint alleging age discrimination,
retaliation, and race discrimination. (Record Document 1). On August 2, 2011, the Court
issued an order stating initial disclosures were due September 13, 2011. (Record
Document 18). On September 20, 2011, the Court issued a scheduling order stating the
deadline for parties to exchange witness lists was December 1, 2011. (Record Document
22). The Defendant served its first set of interrogatories and first request for production of
documents on the Plaintiff October 18, 2011. (Record Document 24-4 at 2).
The Defendant has sent Kennedy multiple requests for her initial disclosure and for
responses to Defendant’s first set of discovery requests. See id. As of the filing of its
motion, Golden Corral had not received any of the aforementioned documents from
Kennedy.
“If a party...fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery...the court where the
action is pending may issue further just orders.” Those may include:

(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the
action, as the prevailing party claims;
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or
opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing
designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party;
or
(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order
except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Fed. Rules of Civ. Proc. Rule 37(b)(2)(A). The decision as to which order it chooses to
issue is left to the discretion of the Court . National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey
Club Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976). (Where the Supreme Court affirmed a district court’s
dismissal of an action after a party failed to participate in discovery.)
In this case, Plaintiff’s only reason for her failure to comply with the Court’s orders
is that Plaintiff’s counsel had trouble locating Kennedy so as to respond to discovery,
exchange a witness list, or provide initial disclosures.
The first document the Plaintiff was to file was her initial disclosure, due September
3rd, 2011. As of the date of this order, the initial disclosures are roughly five months
overdue. While the Court is heavily persuaded to grant Golden Corral’s request for
dismissal of Kennedy’s complaint, such action is premature. Therefore, Plaintiff is hereby
compelled to respond to Defendant’s discovery request, turn over her witness list, and her
initial disclosure by Friday, January 20th 2012. If the Plaintiff fails to comply with this order,
dismissal of her case will be strongly considered by the Court. An assessment of costs will
be issued against Plaintiff in due course.

Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Golden Corral Corporation’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff’s Response to Discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide Golden Corral
with all due discovery documents by Friday January 20th, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Golden Corral Corporation’s Motion to
Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Shreveport, Louisiana, this the 13th day of January,
2012.

Page 3 of 3