Benton v. Prince Georges Community College

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 13 Motion to Compel and DIRECTING Plaintiff to provide full and complete responses to the discovery requests no later than January 14, 2013 (c/m to Plaintiff 1/7/13 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 1/7/13. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
GWENDOLYN J. BENTON
:
v.

: Civil Action No. DKC 12-1577
:

PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY
COLLEGE

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 14, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to compel
discovery responses from Plaintiff, seeking an order compelling
Plaintiff

to

respond

October 5, 2012.

to

discovery

requests

initially

served

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to

compel.
A party is obligated to respond to written discovery requests
in a timely fashion and Plaintiff will be ordered to provide full
and complete responses by January 14, 2013.

Potential sanctions

for failure to provide this discovery can include dismissal of
Plaintiff=s

complaint,

an

order

to

pay

expenses

incurred

Defendant, or contempt.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) provides:
If a party or an officer, director, or
managing agent of a party or a person
designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a) to
testify on behalf of a party fails (1) to
appear before the officer who is to take the
deposition, after being served with a proper
notice, or (2) to serve answers or objections
to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33,
after proper service of the interrogatories,

by

or (3) to serve a written response to a
request for inspection submitted under Rule
34, after proper service of the request, the
court in which the action is pending on motion
may make such orders in regard to the failure
as are just, and among others it may take any
action authorized under subparagraphs (A),
(B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this
rule.
The possible sanctions referred to are:
(A) An order that the matters regarding which
the order was made or any other designated
facts shall be taken to be established for the
purposes of the action in accordance with the
claim of the party obtaining the order;
(B) An order refusing to allow the disobedient
party to support or oppose designated claims
or defenses, or prohibiting that party from
introducing designated matters in evidence;
(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts
thereof, or staying further proceedings until
the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action
or proceeding or any part thereof, or
rendering a judgment by default against the
disobedient party[.]
Furthermore, a party=s failure to obey an order to provide or permit
discovery can also result in dismissal of an action.

Hathcock v.

Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp.,,53 F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995)(“the
express terms of Rule 37 permit a trial court to impose sanctions
when

‘a

party

fails

to

obey

an

order

to

provide

or

permit

discovery.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2).”)

The drastic sanction of

dismissal

in

may

circumstances.

not

be

imposed

except

the

most

compelling

A court is to apply a four factor test:

2

(1) whether the noncomplying party acted in
bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice his
noncompliance caused his adversary, which
necessarily includes an inquiry into the
materiality of the evidence he failed to
produce; (3) the need for deterrence of the
particular sort of noncompliance; and (4) the
effectiveness of less drastic sanctions. Id.
at 503-06. [Wilson v. Volkswagen of America,
Inc., 561 F.2d 494, 503-06 (4th Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1020, 98 S.Ct. 744, 54
L.Ed.2d 768 (1978)]. Such an evaluation will
insure that only the most flagrant case, where
the party=s noncompliance represents bad faith
and callous disregard for the authority of the
district court and the Rules, will result in
the extreme sanction of dismissal or judgment
by default. Id. at 504. In such cases, not
only does the noncomplying party jeopardize
his
or
her
adversary=s
case
by
such
indifference,
but
to
ignore
such
bold
challenges to the district court=s power would
encourage other litigants to flirt with
similar misconduct. National Hockey League,
[v. Metropolitan Hockey Club Inc.], 427 U.S.
[639,] at 643, 96 S.Ct. at 2781; Wilson, 561
F.2d at 504.
Mutual Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Associates, Inc.,
872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff is forewarned that

failure to comply with this order may well result in dismissal of
the complaint.
Accordingly, it is this 7th day of January, 2013, by the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant=s motion to compel (ECF No. 13) BE, and the same

hereby IS, GRANTED;
2.

Plaintiff

is

directed

to

provide

full

and

complete

responses to the discovery requests no later than January 14, 2013;
3

3.

Plaintiff is warned that failure to provide responses may

result in dismissal of her complaint;
4.

The clerk will transmit copies of this Memorandum and

Order to Plaintiff counsel for Defendant.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4