Ely v. Adams et al

Filing 27

ORDER Granting 23 Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery and Granting Defendant's Request for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (Bankston, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AUDRA ELY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-cv-13376
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain
v.

RYAN ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [#23] AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

On May 9, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to compel discovery and/or for
sanctions. Defendants first served their First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents on February 1, 2013. Plaintiff never supplied Defendants with
the requested discovery.
Subsequent to February 1, 2013, the parties made several mutually agreeable
dates for the submission of the discovery requests by Plaintiff. Plaintiff utterly failed to
comply with any of Defendants’ discovery requests.
This case was filed by Plaintiff on July 31, 2012. The case is almost a year old
and because of Plaintiff’s actions, has not moved past the first stages of discovery. In
response to his dilatory actions in answering Defendants’ discovery requests, Plaintiff’s
counsel states that:
-1-

1. Plaintiff counsel’s office has moved.
2. After the move, Plaintiff lost his secretary to illness.
3. After Plaintiff who is a sole practitioner lost his only
secretary the computer which holds all Plaintiff’s counsel
files became corrupt. Plaintiff lost all his files, emails, email
attachments, calendar and contacts. Plaintiff is still trying to
remedy the situation and things have been very difficult to
say the least.
...
6. Plaintiff had Defendant’s Answers ready but the answers
and documents Plaintiff prepared were destroyed.
7. Plaintiff is trying to retrieve the lost documents and
prepare new answers.
See Resp., Dkt. No. 26, pgs. 2-3.

Although the Court is sympathetic with Plaintiff’s counsel’s unfortunate
circumstances, his response reveals that he has done little – if anything – to comply
with the Defendants’ discovery requests.
As a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests,
the Court will assess a sanction of $1,500, payable to Defendants and their counsel
within 14 days of the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must also provide the following within
14 days of this order:
a. answers to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, (signed and
notorized);
b. signed and notorized authorization to disclose patient health
information;
c. Defendants’ First Request for Production of Documents
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must be produced for deposition within
-2-

21 days of this order.
Plaintiff’s failure to provide the above discovery within the ordered time periods
will result in further sanctions and/or dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery [#23] is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2013

/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Judge

-3-