Steelman v. Phelps County Bank
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff be present on December 13, 2012, at 10:00 A.M., for the purpose of giving deposition testimony at the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. If Plaint iff fails to appear for that deposition on December 13, 2012, her complaint will be dismissed with costs and counsel fees awarded against her. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Prosecute [ECF No. 37 ] shall be held in abeyance pending Plaintiff's compliance with this Order and attendance at the December 13, 2012 deposition. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 11/16/2012. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CONNIE STEELMAN,
Plaintiff,
PHELPS COUNTY BANK,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:12CV00141 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint for Failure to Prosecute, or, in the Alternative, for Costs and Sanctions [ECF No. 37].
On August 2, 2012, counsel for Defendant contacted Plaintiff to discuss various matters
in order to facilitate the discovery process. During the conversation, Plaintiff stated she would
provide her available dates for deposition on or before August 9, 2012, so as to comply with the
Case Management Order [ECF No. 19]. Plaintiff failed to provide dates by the time she had
agreed upon, or in accordance with the Case Management Order. On August 16, 2012, counsel
for Defendant wrote Plaintiff a letter requesting a date for a deposition. Hearing no reply from
Plaintiff, Counsel for Defendant set the deposition for September 21, 2012, and properly noticed
Plaintiff. On August 30, 2012, counsel for Defendant and Plaintiff participated in a telephone
conference, and counsel for Defendant reminded Plaintiff of the deposition date that had been
set. Plaintiff did not appear for her deposition on September 21, 2012. Because Plaintiff did not
appear for her deposition, counsel for Defendant called Plaintiff and tried to complete the
deposition while Plaintiff was on the telephone, but Plaintiff refused to go forward with the
deposition and declined to complete the record. During the September 21, 2012 telephone
conference, Plaintiff further stated that she would not make herself available for deposition at any
time.
This Court has granted two motions to compel Plaintiff to facilitate the discovery process
[ECF Nos. 30, 34]. In both orders, one dated August 24, 2012, and one dated September 11,
2012, the Court warned Plaintiff that if she did not comply with the orders, her claims may be
dismissed. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and facilitate the
discovery process and has indicated her reluctance to do so.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff be present on December 13, 2012, at 10:00
A.M., for the purpose of giving deposition testimony at the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111
South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102. This deposition will take place in the ADR
Conference Room B on the Fifth floor of the Courthouse. If Plaintiff fails to appear for that
deposition on December 13, 2012, her complaint will be dismissed with costs and counsel fees
awarded against her. The Court will hold in abeyance awarding of cost and attorney fees for her
failure to appear at the previously noticed deposition when she did not attend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be sent by U.S. and Certified
Mail to Connie Steelman, P.O. Box 917, Jensen Beach, Florida 34958.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Prosecute [ECF No. 37] shall be held in abeyance
2
pending Plaintiff’s compliance with this Order and attendance at the December 13, 2012
deposition.
Dated this 16th
day of November, 2012.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?