Brantely v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal (Filing 58 ) is referred to Magistrate Judge Zwart for disposition of the requests for costs and fees and for a Findings and Recommendation regarding the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff's failure to attend his deposition. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KENNETH BRANTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3215
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendant has filed a Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal (Filing 58) based on
Plaintiff’s alleged failure to attend an agreed-upon and noticed deposition. Defendant alleges
that the Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal is the third motion it has filed in this case due
to “plaintiff’s refusal to participate in the discovery process.” (Filing 58 ¶ 6.) The motion
requests dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s
failure to attend his deposition, as well as $1,085.00 in costs and fees incurred in scheduling
and attending the deposition and $200.00 in attorneys’ fees for bringing the motion.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal (Filing 58) is
referred to Magistrate Judge Zwart for disposition of the requests for costs and fees and for
a Findings and Recommendation regarding the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended
complaint with prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to attend his deposition.
DATED this 28th day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the
fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the
opinion of the court.