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