White v. Whittington et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM RULING re 11 MOTION to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Julian Whittington, Linda Hollifield, Sheriffs Office Bossier Parish. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 09/26/2016. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
RANDELL GENE WHITE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2630

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

JULIAN C. WHITTINGTON, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is Defendants Sheriff Julian C. Whittington (“Whittington”),
Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”), and Detective Linda Hollifield’s
(“Hollifield”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Randell Gene White’s (“White”) complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b) for failure to comply with a discovery
order. See Record Document 11. Counsel for White filed a response to the Motion to
Dismiss. See Record Document 13. For the reasons which follow, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
White is a resident of Elm Grove, Bossier Parish, Louisiana. See Record
Document 1. Whittington is the Sheriff of Bossier Parish. See Record Document 1.
Hollifield is a detective with the Sheriff’s Office. See Record Document 1.
Hollifield investigated White and his wife for potential prostitution of White’s
daughter. See Record Document 1. White was arrested on August 27, 2014, and was
later charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. See Record
Document 1. The prosecutor later dropped the charges against White after White’s wife
pleaded guilty to cruelty to a juvenile. See Record Document 11-1.

Page 1 of 5

White filed this 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 suit on September 2, 2014, alleging
violations of his civil rights under the United States Constitution as well as state law
claims. See Record Document 1. Defendants filed an answer on February 2, 2015. See
Record Document 3. Defendants filed a Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery
Responses on September 8, 2015 after White failed to respond to several discovery
requests. See Record Document 9. On September 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hornsby
granted the motion, ordering White to respond to the discovery requests within 10 days.
See Record Document 10. After White failed to respond, Defendants filed the instant
motion on September 23, 2015. See Record Document 11. The Motion has been fully
briefed by the parties. See Record Documents 11, 13, 14.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Defendants have moved to dismiss White’s claims pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2) and

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In pertinent part, Rule 37(b)(2) provides, “If
any party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order
under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just
orders [including] dismissing the action.” Rule 41 states that “if a plaintiff fails . . . to comply
with a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action.”
Ultimately, the decision as to whether to grant dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim under
either Rule 37(b)(2) or 41(b) is at the discretion of the trial court judge. See Diaz v. S.
Drilling Corp., 427 F.2d 1118, 1126 (5th Cir. 1970) (interpreting Rule 37 sanctions); see
Glo Co. v. Murchison & Co., 397 F2d 928, 929 (3rd Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 939,
89 S. Ct. 290 (1968) (interpreting Rule 41(b) sanctions). However, in determining whether
Page 2 of 5

or not dismissal of the claim is proper, courts have considered several factors. First,
dismissal is considered a proper sanction when the failure to comply with the court’s order
is a result of willfulness or bad faith, and not due to the inability to comply. See Nat’l
Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643, 96 S. Ct. 2778, 2781
(1986). Second, dismissal is proper when the use of a less drastic sanction would not
serve as a proper deterrent. See Marshall v. Segona, 621 F.2d 763, 768 (5th Cir. 1980).
The third factor is whether the other party was substantially prejudiced by the plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the Court order. See Batson v. Neal Spelce Assocs. Inc., 765 F.2d
511, 514 (5th Cir. 1985). Finally, dismissal has been determined to be an inappropriate
sanction when the neglect is attributable to the attorney and not the blameless client. See
id. at 514.
II.

ANALYSIS
Dismissal of all of White’s claims is proper under both Rule 37(b) and Rule 41(b).

It is undisputed that White failed to comply with Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s order that
White respond to Defendants’ discovery requests within 10 days. See Record Documents
10, 13. The reason for the failure to comply is that counsel for White has been unable to
contact him. See Record Document 13. Though counsel for White was eventually able to
contact him, this contact was evidently not enough to elicit enough information from White
to respond to the discovery requests. See Record Document 14.
All of the factors relevant to deciding whether to dismiss a case for failure to follow
a court order weigh in favor of dismissal of the instant action. First, though there seems
to be no bad faith in this case, there does seem to be a willful disregard of the Court’s
discovery order on the part of White himself. Despite repeated attempts by White’s
Page 3 of 5

counsel to contact him, he has not responded, or has responded so infrequently that
response to the discovery requests has been impossible. Second, dismissal is the best
deterrent to future disobedience of discovery orders in this situation, as a lesser sanction
would encourage delay of discovery in defiance of such orders. Third, Defendants’ ability
to defend this suit has been prejudiced by a failure to respond to discovery that was due
over a year ago. Fourth, the neglect in the instant action seems to be entirely attributable
to White’s neglect rather than that of his attorney. Weighing these factors, the Court finds
that dismissal of all of White’s claims is appropriate. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is
therefore GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that dismissal of all of White’s claims is appropriate because all
factors relevant to the Court’s decision weigh in favor of dismissal.1 Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss White’s claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b)
for failure to comply with a discovery order is therefore GRANTED. Therefore, IT IS
ORDERED that all of White’s claims be and are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A judgment consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall
issue herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this the 26th day of
September, 2016.

Dismissal here includes dismissal of White’s claims against “Unknown Detectives” that
were added as defendants. See Record Document 1. Rule 41(b) permits dismissal of “the
action or any claim against” a defendant who files a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b),
and the Court chooses to exercise its discretion to dismiss the entire action in this
instance, including the claims against the “Unknown Detectives.”
Page 4 of 5
1

Page 5 of 5