Mackin v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING 17 motion to compel and DIRECTING Plaintiff to provide full and complete responses to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories by no later than February 21, 2018 (c/m to Plaintiff 2/7/18 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 2/7/2018. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
TONYA A. MACKIN
Civil Action No. DKC 16-3923
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
On January 16, 2018, Defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
(ECF No. 17).
Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
scheduling order provides, “Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures
November 14, 2017.
All depositions and other discovery shall be
According to Defendant’s motion, Defendant served
its first request for production and interrogatories pursuant to
Rule 26(b) on November 7, 2017.
Plaintiff did not respond.
submitted when the orginal (sic) claim was
filed with the court.
You verified in
previous correspondence that you received
I did not receive your
discovery information in a timely manner it
was to be received by November 14th it was
mailed on the 14th not received. that she is
not obligated to do so.
(ECF No. 17-2, at 2).
Plaintiff’s objection is not very clear
initial disclosures does not excuse Plaintiff’s duty to respond
to other discovery disputes.
The parties are expected to engage
discovery consistent with the federal rules and without further
8 Charles Allan Wright, Arthur R. Miller,
Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2001 (3d ed. 2017).
A party is obligated to respond to written discovery requests in
a timely fashion. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s
first discovery requests, and she has, therefore, forfeited any
complete responses by February 21, 2018.
Plaintiff is also warned about the consequence of failing
to comply with this Order and future requests for discovery.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A) provides, “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.”
possible sanctions 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;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the
order is obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in
whole or in part;
(vi) rendering a default
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.
A party’s failure to obey provide or
permit discovery may result in dismissal of an action.
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
In determining the proper sanction, a
district court applies a four-factor test:
(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.
Such an evaluation will insure that only the
callous disregard for the authority of the
district court and the Rules, will result in
judgment by default.
In such cases, not
only does the noncomplying party jeopardize
challenges to the district court’s power
would encourage other litigants to flirt
with similar misconduct.
Mutual Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Associates,
Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is this 7th day of February, 2018, by the
Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 17) BE, and the
same hereby IS, GRANTED;
Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?