Engleman v. Cumberland County, et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting in remaining part 41 Motion to Compel and granting 46 Second Motion to Compel - Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and proper responses to defendants first set of interrogatories and first set of requests fo r production within seven days of entry of this order. Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) plaintiff is DIRECTED to pay the defendants' reasonable attorney's fees and costs for pursuing the motion to compel. The court additionally GRANTS that part o f defendants first motion to compel, previously held in abeyance, requesting reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in pursuing that motion. Counsel for defendants is DIRECTED to submit an affidavit regarding reasonable fees and other costs inc urred in pursuing the motions to compel within seven days of entry of this order. Plaintiff is hereby WARNED that further violations of the courts orders or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning discovery in this case will result in the imposition of severe sanctions, potentially including dismissal. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/05/2013. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:12-cv-00147-FL
CHERYL L. ENGLEMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
DEPUTY CROMARTIE, DEPUTY HYDE, )
and DEPUTY MCDANIEL, in their
)
individual capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on that part of defendants’ motion to compel previously
held in abeyance (DE 41) and on defendants’ second motion to compel DE (44). The time for filing
responsive briefing has expired and issues raised are ripe for ruling.
On March 27, 2012, pro se plaintiff filed a complaint seeking compensatory and punitive
damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Cumberland County, Judge George Franks, Earl R. Butler,
Dallas Tyree, Greg Morrison, and Deputies Cromartie, Hyde, and McDaniel for allegedly violating
the constitutional rights of her and her minor children. All defendants filed motions to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By order entered January 15, 2013, the
court granted those motions except as to the individual capacity claims against Deputies Cromartie,
Hyde, and McDaniel.1
In that order, the court directed the remaining parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference,
which was done telephonically on February 4, 2013. Plaintiff appeared pro se, assisted by a person

1

The court, of its own initiative hereby constructively AMENDS the case caption to reflect the dismissals
effected by its order entered January 15, 2013.

who refused to identify himself. At conference, plaintiff objected to the conference stating that the
court lacked authority to order it. Plaintiff further argued that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
do not apply to her claims and contended that the case must proceed immediately to trial. Where
the parties did not reach an agreement on a proposed plan, defendants filed a report outlining the
parties competing proposals, which report was signed by plaintiff, on February 15, 2013 (DE 38).
The court entered its case management order on February 25, 2013, establishing, among other
things, a deadline of March 11, 2013, for initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and a deadline
of May 7, 2013, for disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2).
On May 6, 2013, defendants filed their first motion to compel. In that motion, defendants
informed that plaintiff had not served her initial disclosures, nor responded to defendants’ first set
of interrogatories or first set of requests for production, both served on plaintiff on March 18, 2013.
Defendants sought an order compelling plaintiff to serve her initial disclosures and proper responses
to defendants’ interrogatories and requests for production. Defendants also sought an extension of
the deadline for Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures – as to defendants only – for a period of sixty (60) days
following plaintiff’s provision of required disclosure and response to the discovery request. Finally,
defendants requested reasonable attorneys fees and costs for pursuing the motion, pursuant to Rule
37(a)(5).
By order entered May 28, 2013, the court granted in part defendants’ motion, ordering
plaintiff to provide Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and proper responses to defendants’ discovery requests
by June 7, 2013. The court also granted defendants’ request to extend the deadline for Rule 26(a)(2)
disclosures as to defendants only. The court held in abeyance defendants’ request for attorneys fees
pending further case developments, and admonished plaintiff to follow the rules and adhere to the

2

court’s orders.
On June 11, 2013, defendants filed their second motion to compel, informing that plaintiff
had still not provided any initial disclosures or responses to defendants’ first set of interrogatories
or first set of requests for production. Defendants again request an order compelling discovery on
these matters, and for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred pursuing the motion.
For good cause shown, defendants’ second motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to serve Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and proper responses to defendants first set of
interrogatories and first set of requests for production within seven days of entry of this order.
Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) plaintiff is DIRECTED to pay the defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs for pursuing the motion to compel. For good cause shown, the court additionally
GRANTS that part of defendants’ first motion to compel, previously held in abeyance, requesting
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in pursuing that motion. Counsel for defendants is
DIRECTED to submit an affidavit regarding reasonable fees and other costs incurred in pursuing
the motions to compel within seven days of entry of this order
Plaintiff is hereby WARNED that further violations of the court’s orders or the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure concerning discovery in this case will result in the imposition of severe sanctions,
potentially including dismissal.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of August, 2013.

________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3