Casavelli et al v. Britton et al
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel [#41] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motions to compel [## 39, 40, 44] are granted, and plaintiffs must, no later than Monday, May 11, 2015, provide to defense counsel: disclosures that fully comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A); written answers, under oath, to each interrogatory; all documents requested by defendants; and written responses to the document requests. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than Friday, May 22, 2015, the parties shall submit proposals for any necessary changes to the Case Management Order previously entered in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are specifically warned that their failure to comply with this Order may result in the full range of sanctions available, including dismissal of their claims with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on April 13, 2015. (MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NICHOLAS CASAVELLI &
NICOLINA CASTELLI,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRIAN J. BRITTON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:13 CV 2433 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Both sides in this case have filed motions to compel. Plaintiffs did not
respond to any of the defendants’ motions to compel. The briefs and exhibits
demonstrate that plaintiffs have failed to provide proper Rule 26 initial disclosures,
and have not responded to defendants’ proper interrogatories and document
requests.
Plaintiffs provided a document to defendants labeled “DISCLOSURES
required by Rule 26.” The document, however, did not contain any of the
information required by Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Instead, it stated that
“Discovery will be needed on the following subjects:” and then listed the three
individual defendants, asked for documents related to those defendants, and
requested that the defendants submit to psychological evaluations. It then had a
heading called “Complaint for Negligence,” followed by what looks somewhat like
a pleading. Importantly, the “Disclosures” did not provide any information.
Rule 26(a)(1)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., required plaintiffs to disclose the names of
people with information plaintiffs might use to support their claims, any
documents plaintiffs might use to support their claims, and a computation of any
damages plaintiffs are seeking. Plaintiffs have provided none of this information.
Defendants served their own disclosures on plaintiffs, and they also served
interrogatories and document requests. Plaintiffs did not answer the interrogatories
or produce the documents. When defendants attempted to meet and confer with
plaintiffs about the lack of responses, plaintiffs were not at all cooperative; they
did not respond to letters or attempts to resolve the disputes, except for one
telephone call where plaintiff Casavelli hung up on one defense counsel.
Plaintiffs filed their own “Motion to Compel,” which asks for leniency
because they are pro se, asks that the court order defendants to respond to
plaintiffs’ “Interrogatories” – apparently plaintiffs are referring to the things listed
in their so called “Disclosures” – and asks the court to “direct the defendants and
their attorneys to respond to our inquiries in a professional manner and promptly.”
By not filing timely responses, plaintiffs have waived any objections to the
discovery sought, so I will grant defendants’ motions to compel in their entirety.
Plaintiffs must provide disclosures in compliance with Rule 26(a)(1)(A) and must
-2-
answer fully and under oath all interrogatories that have been served on them, must
produce all documents that have been requested, and must serve written responses
to the document requests in conformity with Rule 34(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Plaintiffs have not properly sought discovery, and therefore I will deny their
motion to compel in its entirety.
The Court has previously cautioned the plaintiffs that they must comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. Their
failure to do so has resulted in delay of the preparation of this case. Plaintiffs need
to remember that they are the ones who wanted to have a lawsuit. If they do not
provide the disclosures required and respond fully to the discovery that has been
propounded on them, the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss this case with
prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel [#41] is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motions to compel [## 39,
40, 44] are granted, and plaintiffs must, no later than Monday, May 11, 2015,
provide to defense counsel: disclosures that fully comply with Rule 26(a)(1)(A);
written answers, under oath, to each interrogatory; all documents requested by
defendants; and written responses to the document requests.
-3-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than Friday, May 22, 2015, the
parties shall submit proposals for any necessary changes to the Case Management
Order previously entered in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are specifically warned that
their failure to comply with this Order may result in the full range of sanctions
available, including dismissal of their claims with prejudice.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of April, 2015.
-4-
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?