Mackin v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. et al
Filing
18
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
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 16-3923
:
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.
et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
On January 16, 2018, Defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
moved
to
compel
(ECF No. 17).
Plaintiff
to
respond
to
discovery
requests.
Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
The
scheduling order provides, “Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures
are
required
to
be
November 14, 2017.
completed
by
original).
March
served
on
opposing
parties
on
or
before
All depositions and other discovery shall be
15,
2018.”
(ECF
No.
16)
(emphasis
in
According to Defendant’s motion, Defendant served
its first request for production and interrogatories pursuant to
Rule 26(b) on November 7, 2017.
Defendant
inquired
about
the
Plaintiff did not respond.
non-response,
and
explained:
You
have
received
documents
requested
submitted when the orginal (sic) claim was
filed with the court.
You verified in
previous correspondence that you received
the documentation.
I did not receive your
discovery information in a timely manner it
was to be received by November 14th it was
Plaintiff
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
and
Any
not
well
taken.
delay
by
Defendants
in
providing
initial disclosures does not excuse Plaintiff’s duty to respond
to other discovery disputes.
cooperatively
in
a
The parties are expected to engage
continuous
exchange
of
information
during
discovery consistent with the federal rules and without further
court intervention.
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
objections
to
Accordingly,
the
Plaintiff
requests.
will
be
Fed.R.Civ.P.
ordered
to
provide
33(b)(4).
full
and
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;
2
The
(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from
supporting or opposing designated claims or
defenses, or from introducing designated
matters in evidence;
(iii)
part;
striking
pleadings
in
whole
or
in
(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
judgment
against
(vii) treating as contempt of court the
failure to obey any order except an order to
submit to a physical or mental examination.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A).
A party’s failure to obey provide or
permit discovery may 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.’”).
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
most
flagrant
case,
where
the
party’s
noncompliance
represents
bad
faith
and
3
callous disregard for the authority of the
district court and the Rules, will result in
the
extreme
sanction
of
dismissal
or
judgment by default.
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.
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
United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland,
ORDERED that:
1.
Defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 17) BE, and the
same hereby IS, GRANTED;
2.
Plaintiff
responses
to
Documents
and
is
directed
Defendant’s
to
First
Interrogatories
by
provide
Request
no
later
full
for
and
complete
Production
than
of
February
21,
2018; and
3.
The
clerk
IS
DIRECTED
to
transmit
a
copy
of
this
Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for
Defendant.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
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?