Wiemer v. Rubino et al

Filing 171

ORDER STAYING BRIEFING AND REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDERS REGARDING DISCOVERY. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 2/12/18 (Whitsitt, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT WIEMER, M.D.

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:16CV99-LG-RHW

DENISE RUBINO and JOHN DOES 1-5

DEFENDANT/
COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

ORDER STAYING BRIEFING AND REQUIRING COMPLIANCE
WITH COURT’S ORDERS REGARDING DISCOVERY
THIS CAUSE is before the Court for consideration of motions filed after the
Court granted a default judgment to Defendant Denise Rubino. (See ECF No. 161).
The Court found Rubino was entitled to default judgment on her counter-claims
against Weimer as a sanction for his failure to comply with numerous orders of the
Court. (Id. at 8-9). Since that occurred, Weimer obtained new counsel who
requested that the Court reconsider the default judgment sanction. (Pl. Mot. for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 166). Weimer asserted that he should not be held
responsible for what he contends were his former counsel’s multiple failures to
comply with discovery orders and failure to pay a monetary sanction. Weimer
asserts that in most cases, his failures were caused by simply being unaware of what
he needed to do. He contends that he did not check his email regularly and did not
know that motions were pending against him or that he had committed discovery
violations until he hired new counsel.1 He states that he now understands he needs

1

Weimer does not explain how he attended a settlement conference with
Magistrate Judge Walker in October 2017 but was unaware of the developments in
his case until his new counsel made an appearance two months later.

to check his email regularly and is fully committed to participating in the discovery
process. (Id. at 3).
In order to respond to Weimer’s allegations that faulty communications were
the cause for his discovery violations, Rubino requested pertinent documents. (See
Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena to Produce Documents, ECF No. 167). Weimer’s
former counsel filed a Motion to Quash, (ECF No. 169), asserting attorney-client
privilege. Rubino then requested additional time to respond to Weimer’s Motion to
Reconsider, until she was able to obtain the discovery she requested concerning
former counsel’s communications with Weimer. (Mot. Ext. Time, ECF No. 170).
Before the parties and the Court take up Weimer’s substantive grounds for
reconsideration or address this new discovery dispute, it is the Court’s opinion that
Weimer must purge himself of the well-documented discovery violations that have
already taken place. Regardless of who is at fault, discovery remains unproduced
and the monetary sanction remains unpaid. Accordingly, all further briefing in this
case will be stayed until the Court is notified in writing that Weimer has provided to
Rubino: 1) tax records initially requested in April 2017 and required by the Court’s
September 13, 2017 Order (ECF No. 144); 2) payment of the $300 sanction as
required by the Court’s September 13, 2017 Order (ECF No. 144); and 3) all medical
practice records as required by the Court’s Orders entered August 2, 2017. (ECF
Nos. 112, 113).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that briefing on any
pending motion is stayed until further order of the Court.
-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff/CounterDefendant Robert Wiemer, M.D. shall transmit to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Denise Rubino the documents and payment set out above on or before FEBRUARY
28, 2018.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Denise Rubino shall
notify the Court in writing of the status of Robert Weimer’s compliance with this
Order or before MARCH 2, 2018.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 12th day of February 2018.
s\

Louis Guirola, Jr.

Louis Guirola, Jr.
U.S. District Judge

-3-