Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 100

ORDER granting 82 Motion to Compel Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 8/25/2011. (TXB, ) Modified on 8/26/2011 to reflect copy mailed to Spreadbury this date (APP, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_____________________________________________
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON,
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
BOONE KARLBERG P.C.
DR. ROBERT BROPHY, TRISTA SMITH,
NANSU RODDY, JERRY STEELE,
STEVE SNAVELY, STEVEN
BRUNER-MURPHY, RYAN OSTER,
KENNETH S. BELL, and JENNIFER LINT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
On July 25, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the City and Library
Defendants’ (“Defendants”) motion to compel Plaintiff Michael Spreadbury to
respond to numerous discovery requests. Dkt. 68. The Court also indicated that it
would, by way of separate order, set a hearing on Defendants’ request for an award
of expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Dkt. 68.
Approximately two weeks later, on August 9, 2011, Defendants filed a
motion under authority of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) to compel Plaintiff to
1

comply with the July 25, 2011 order compelling discovery. Dkt. 82. Defendants
state that, as of August 9, 2011, Plaintiff still had not responded to any of their
discovery requests and “has not expressed an intention to comply with the Court’s
discovery order.” Dkt. 83, at 2. Defendants ask the Court to compel Plaintiff to
comply with its prior discovery order, and seek an award of attorney fees and
expenses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Dkt. 83, at 6.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(B), Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’
motion to compel compliance with the prior discovery order was due on August
23, 2011. As of the date of this Order, however, Plaintiff has not filed a response
brief or demonstrated compliance with the Court’s July 25, 2011, discovery order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes the court in the district where an
action is pending to impose sanctions on a party for failure to comply with a
discovery order and enter any “just orders.” Rule 37(b)(2)(A) provides that the
Court may, among other things, prohibit “the disobedient party from supporting
or opposing designated claims or defenses,” or “dismiss the action or proceedings
in whole or in part.”
Accordingly, and good cause appearing based on Defendants’ supporting
brief and the record as a whole,

2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s
compliance with this Court’s July 25, 2011, discovery order is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall responsively answer Defendants’ discovery requests on or before
September 6, 2011. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to comply with this
order, the Court may dismiss his case in whole or in part, or prohibit him from
supporting or opposing certain claims or allegations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on Defendants’ two requests
for attorney fees and expenses is set for September 14, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. at the
Russell Smith Courthouse, 201 E. Broadway, Missoula, Montana. The hearing
will address Defendants’ request for an award of fees and expenses incurred in
making their first motion to compel, as well as their request for fees and expenses
incurred in making the pending motion.
DATED this 25th day of August, 2011.

/s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

3