Frey v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of his case [Doc. # 39 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. # 40 ] is granted.. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/3/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KENNETH FREY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF ST. LOUIS,
Defendant.

No. 4:15-CV-737 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to extend his case. No
pending deadlines existed when plaintiff filed his motion for an extension of time;
however, reading the motion in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court will
construe it as a request for an extension of time to comply with defendant’s
discovery requests.

Defendant has responded in opposition with a motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and 41(b).
Throughout the course of this litigation, plaintiff has repeatedly refused to
comply with the requirements of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiff has known about these obligations since attending the

scheduling conference on September 1, 2015.

The case management order

entered in this case required the parties to serve all disclosures required by Rule
26(a)(1) no later than September 25, 2015.

Plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s

first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories were due
by November 5, 2015. Plaintiff did not comply with these deadlines. In an attempt
to resolve the discovery dispute outside the purview of the Court, defendant

allowed plaintiff until November 16 to serve his initial disclosures and respond to its
discovery requests. Plaintiff did not meet this deadline either.
On December 8, the Court granted defendant’s motion to compel and
ordered plaintiff to serve his initial disclosures and respond to discovery requests no
later than December 23.

Plaintiff did not comply with this deadline either.

Defendant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
37(b)(2)(A), to which plaintiff responded in opposition.

The Court denied the

motion to dismiss, noting that dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) “may be considered
as a sanction only if there is (1) an order compelling discovery, (2) a willful
violation of that order, and (3) prejudice to the other party.”

Schoffstall v.

Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2000). Because dismissal with prejudice is
an extreme sanction and plaintiff’s disobedience of the order did not appear to be
willful at that time, the Court allowed plaintiff a final opportunity to comply with his
discovery obligations by no later than February 22, 2016.

Plaintiff was warned:

“Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action
with prejudice.” Order, at *3 [Doc. #38] (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff now seeks an extension of the February 22 deadline because of “an
emergency in the family.” Pl.’s Mot. [Doc. #39]. No further detail or explanation
describing the need for the extension is given. Also, no date is proposed by which
plaintiff expects he could comply with discovery. Moreover, the request was filed
three days after the deadline had already passed. As explained above, plaintiff has
had

numerous

opportunities

to

pursue

his

claim

in

compliance

with

the

requirements of discovery set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The

Court’s last order allowed plaintiff an additional 30 days to fulfill his discovery

2

obligations, after plaintiff had already had more than two months of extensions of
time from the original deadlines to serve his initial disclosures and respond to
discovery requests. Plaintiff’s untimely and unsubstantiated excuse for his failure
to utilize his final opportunity to comply with discovery obligations is wholly
inadequate. The Court will deny his request for an extension of time.
Furthermore, the Court finds it appropriate to grant defendant’s motion to
dismiss this action under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) due to plaintiff’s willful violations of
discovery orders and the resulting prejudice to defendant in its ability to mount a
defense.

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing a defendant to move to

dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or a court order).1

Plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery has

rendered the deadlines in the case management order meaningless and has created
unwarranted delay.

The Court has no confidence that affording plaintiff further

opportunities to produce discovery will result in compliance.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of his case
[Doc. #39] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. #40] is
granted.

____________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2016.
1

A monetary sanction would be ineffective, because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

3