Vaughn v. Vilsack

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 34 ] is GRANTED . Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate judgment is entered herewith. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 10/15/2014. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BILL VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TOM J. VILSACK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV2427 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 34). On
December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed an “Employment Discrimination Complaint.” (ECF No. 1). On
August 20, 2013, the Court issued a Case Management Order, which required the parties to make
their Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures no later than August 28, 2014. (ECF No. 19). On September 12,
2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures (ECF No. 24). Therein,
Defendant stated that Plaintiff had not provided his Initial Disclosures and did not respond to
Defendant’s request for Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures. On September 22, 2014, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to provide his Initial Disclosures no later than October 1, 2014, or the Court would
sanction Plaintiff, including possibly dismissing Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute. (ECF
No. 28). On October 3, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to
Defendant’s Interrogatories and Requests to Produce. (ECF 30). On October 6, 2014, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendant’s
Interrogatories and Requests to Produce and to provide his answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories
and responses to Defendant’s Requests to Produce no later than October 14, 2014, or the Court

1

would dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to comply with this Court’s Orders and failure to
prosecute his claims. (ECF No. 33).
Plaintiff has failed to file or serve his Initial Disclosures, answers to Defendant’s
Interrogatories, or responses to Defendant’s Requests to Produce. See Defendant’s Motion to
Compel, ECF No. 34. Instead, Plaintiff has filed documents purporting to challenge this Court’s
jurisdiction, including the Court’s ability to issue a Case Management Order, on several occasions.
See ECF No. 20, 22, 23, 29.
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court can
dismiss a case with prejudice where a party fails to obey a discovery order. “A district court has
wide latitude in imposing sanctions for failure to comply with discovery[.]” Aziz v. Wright, 34
F.3d 587, 589 (8th Cir. 1994). Under Eighth Circuit precedent, a court can dismiss an action if
there is: “(1) an order compelling discovery; (2) a willful violation of that order; and (3) prejudice
to the other party.” Schubert v. Pfizer, Inc., 459 F. App'x 568, 572 (8th Cir. 2012)(citing Keefer v.
Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 238 F.3d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 2000)).
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Employment Discrimination Complaint, with prejudice,
because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case and not complied with this Court’s Orders. The
Court has twice warned Plaintiff that his refusal to comply with this Court’s Orders could result in
dismissal of his case, but Plaintiff has taken no affirmative steps to either prosecute his case or
comply with this Court’s Orders. Defendant is unable to defend this action without this necessary
discovery that Plaintiff refuses to provide. The Court does not believe that any lesser sanctions
would be effective, given Plaintiff’s position that he is not subject to this Court’s jurisdiction. See
Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 135 F.3d 1216, 1223 (8th Cir. 1998)(holding that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's action with prejudice on the
ground that appellant's conduct constituted a wilful disregard of court orders). The Court finds
2

that no other appropriate sanction exists and dismisses Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. See
Compton v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep't, 4:11-CV-1975 CEJ, 2012 WL 6738493, at *3 (E.D. Mo.
Dec. 31, 2012)(dismissing plaintiffs’ case with prejudice where plaintiffs wilfully ignored two
court orders to compel discovery, without explanation or excuse, to the prejudice of the
defendants).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 34] is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate judgment is entered
herewith.
Dated this 15th day of October, 2014.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3