Warren v. United States of America
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/15/11. (eb2, Chambers) (c/m to Plaintiff 8/15/11, eb) Modified on 8/15/2011 (nss, Deputy Clerk).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
VIVIANA WARREN
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 10-3015
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) case is a motion for sanctions filed by
Defendant United States of America.
(ECF No. 16).
The issues
are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule
105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary.
For the reasons that
follow, the Government’s motion will be granted.
I.
Background
Plaintiff Viviana Warren originally filed a complaint in
this court, with the assistance of counsel, on October 25, 2010.
(ECF No. 1).
herself
while
In her complaint, Warren alleges that she injured
visiting
Germantown, Maryland.
a
United
States
Post
Office
in
She asserts a single claim of negligence
against the United States for its failure to repair a hole that
allegedly caused her to trip and fall.
After the United States answered the complaint, the court
entered
a
scheduling
order
on
January
14,
2011.
The
court
originally anticipated that discovery would close on May 31,
2011; the dispositive motions deadline was set for roughly a
month later.
(ECF No. 8, at 2).
In March 2011, however,
Warren’s attorneys withdrew from the case because Warren had
fired them.
(ECF Nos. 10, 11).
Then, on April 5, 2011, the United States filed a motion to
compel answers to its first set of interrogatories and requests
for
production.
explained
that
(ECF
neither
No.
12).
Warren
nor
The
her
Government’s
original
motion
counsel
had
provided any response to the Government’s discovery requests,
even though responses were due on February 22, 2011.
(Id.).
This court granted the Government’s motion to compel in an order
dated
May
5,
2011,
ordering
Warren
to
responses no later than May 23, 2011.
other
things,
the
court
warned
provide
discovery
(ECF No. 15).
Warren
that
she
Among
could
be
sanctioned for failing to provide discovery in a timely fashion.
(Id. at 1).
Warren was specifically told – three times over –
that her complaint could be dismissed if she failed to comply
with the court’s order.
(Id. at 1, 2, 4).
On May 27, 2011, the Government moved for sanctions.
No. 16).
(ECF
According to the Government, Warren did not respond
“in any way” to the court’s order of May 5.
(Id. at 1).
Warren
did not provide discovery responses by the court’s deadline –
and in fact had not provided any discovery responses as of the
2
date of the Government’s motion.
(Id. at 2).
Consequently, the
Government asks for dismissal.
The
court
wrote
Warren
a
letter,
dated
June
2,
2011,
cautioning her that her case could be dismissed if she failed to
respond
to
the
motion
for
sanctions.
Nevertheless,
in
the
several weeks since the Government’s motion was filed, Warren
has failed to provide any opposition or response of any kind to
the Government’s motion.
II.
Standard of Review
The Government moves for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A).
That rule permits a district
court to impose certain punitive measures, up to and including
dismissal,
Fed.R.Civ.P.
on
any
party
37(b)(2)(A).
who
disobeys
“Rule
37(b)(2)
a
discovery
gives
the
order.
court
a
broad discretion to make whatever disposition is just in the
light of the facts of the particular case.”
8B Charles Alan
Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2289 (3d ed.
2010); see also Camper v. Home Quality Mgmt. Inc., 200 F.R.D.
516, 518 (D.Md. 2000) (“Federal district courts possess great
discretion to sanction parties for failure to obey discovery
orders.”).
The Government specifically asks the court to impose “the
most severe in the spectrum of sanctions,” dismissal.
Nat’l
Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643
3
(1976).
But “[w]hile the imposition of sanctions under Rule
37(b) lies within the trial court’s discretion, it is not a
discretion
without
bounds
or
limits.”
Hathcock
v.
Navistar
Int’l Transp. Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995) (quotation
marks and brackets omitted).
This is particularly so when a
party requests the severe penalty of dismissal.
Id.
Thus, a
district court should consider four factors in determining what
sanctions
to
impose
under
Rule
37:
“(1)
whether
the
non-
complying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice
that
noncompliance
caused
the
adversary;
(3)
the
need
for
deterrence of the particular sort of non-compliance; and (4)
whether less drastic sanctions would have been effective.”
Belk
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th
Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted).
A party’s total failure to comply with the mandates of
discovery, with no explanation for that failure, can certainly
justify this harshest of sanctions.
Info.,
Inc.
v.
Field,
737
See, e.g., CoStar Realty
F.Supp.2d
496,
502
(D.Md.
2010);
Middlebrooks v. Sebelius, No. 04-2792, 2009 WL 2514111, at *1-3
(D.Md. Aug. 13, 2009); Aerodyne Sys. Eng’g, Ltd. v. Heritage
Int’l
Bank,
115
F.R.D.
281,
290-91
(D.Md
1987)
(dismissing
complaint without prejudice where plaintiff failed for several
months
court
to
respond
orders,
and
adequately
did
not
to
discovery
seeks
4
requests,
extensions
or
ignored
protective
orders); see also Roman v. ESB, Inc., 550 F.2d 1343, 1349 (4th
Cir.
1976)
(finding
dismissal
sanction
appropriate
where
plaintiffs “had failed to respond to interrogatories; failed to
respond to an order entered by the district court requiring a
response
to
the
respond
upon
interrogatories;
specific
request
and
after
additionally
the
court
without prejudice, a first motion to dismiss”).
failed
had
to
denied,
Interrogatories
and document requests are important elements of discovery; a
defendant
them.
would
be
hard-pressed
to
conduct
its
case
without
When a plaintiff refuses to respond to such requests, it
can have a debilitating effect on the rest of the litigation.
“If a party served with interrogatories fails to answer them on
time, or at all, . . . such action can have a spiraling effect
on
the
future
litigation
scheduling
collateral
of
discovery,
disputes
which
intervention of the court to resolve.”
Flagstaff
Indus.
Corp.,
173
F.R.D.
and
inject
typically
into
the
require
the
Jayne H. Lee, Inc. v.
651,
653
(D.Md.
1997).
Likewise, a failure to respond to a request for production of
documents
“frequently
derails
the
discovery
process,
because
parties often wait to schedule depositions until after document
production
has
occurred.”
Id.
at
655.
Indeed,
delay
and
complications seems to be exactly what has happened in this
case, where the Government observes that Warren’s behavior has
5
“effectively stalled all pretrial activities.”
(ECF No. 16, at
4).
Although the dismissal sanction is to be used sparingly, it
seems especially appropriate in this case.
Since filing her
complaint, Warren has largely been absent.
Even after being
warned of the prospects of dismissal, she has not contacted this
court or the Government in even an informal fashion.
compliance is highly suggestive of bad faith.
Her non-
Moreover, an
absolute lack of discovery produces obvious prejudice to the
Government.
(“The
See, e.g., Middlebrooks, 2009 WL 2514111, at *3
purpose
attorney
to
of
pre-trial
obtain
discovery
information
is
from
for
the
a
litigating
opposing
party,
information which in many cases is not otherwise available.”);
see also Adriana Int’l Corp v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th
Cir. 1990) (“A defendant suffers prejudice if the plaintiff’s
actions
impair
the
defendant’s
ability
to
go
to
trial
or
threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.”).
Because of Warren’s behavior, the Government has been unable to
obtain information about Warren’s alleged injuries or the manner
in which she suffered them.
type
of
explained,
conduct
civil
is
In addition, the need to deter this
manifest.
cases
As
simply
the
cannot
participation by all parties in discovery.
she
responded
to
the
court’s
direct,
6
court
has
proceed
already
without
Finally, given that
unequivocal
order
with
silence, there is nothing to indicate that Warren’s behavior
would be affected by a less drastic sanction.
In sum, as this
court has explained before:
A
complete
failure
to
participate
in
discovery without explanation would be in
bad faith and clearly prejudicial to other
parties if a Plaintiff fails to answer
material discovery requests.
No litigant
can be permitted to file a law suit and then
ignore discovery obligations.
Goldring v. Town of La Plata, Md., No. DKC 04-1052, 2005 WL
1075435, at *2 (D.Md. May 4, 2005).
The court will dismiss
Warren’s complaint.
III. Conclusion
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
sanctions will be granted.
the
Government’s
motion
A separate order will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
7
for
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?