Grant v. Dental Center at Zebulon, et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Sanctions; denying as moot 60 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 3/17/2015. (Herrmann, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:14-CV-220-RN
NICHOLE D. GRANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Order
CHRISTOPHER CLARK, DDS, &
ASSOC., dba THE DENTAL CENTER
AT ZEBULON,
Defendants.

Defendants ask the court to impose sanctions on the Plaintiff under Rule 37 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D.E. 40.) Defendants allege that Plaintiff engaged in two
forms of misconduct: (1) she improperly removed copies of her former co-employees’ time cards
and copies of patient records containing information protected by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) in September and October of 2013; and (2) she
failed to respond adequately to Defendants’ interrogatories and request for the production of
documents.
Upon consideration of the Defendants’ brief and the arguments made by the parties
during a hearing conducted on March 5, 2015, the court DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for
Sanctions.
Defendants complain first that Plaintiff’s improper removal of HIPAA-protected records
“is worse than any failure to comply with a Court order or failure to respond to interrogatories”
and should be sanctioned by striking her Complaint under F.R.C.P. 37. (D.E. 41; Def. Mem. at
4.) While the court agrees that Plaintiff’s alleged removal of patient records, if true, is a serious

matter, it was conduct that took place before the onset of litigation. Rule 37(b) applies to a
party’s failure to comply with a court order during the course of discovery. Accordingly, Rule
37 does not give this court authority to sanction a party for conduct that took place before the
filing of a complaint.
Defendants complain second of Plaintiff’s failure to respond adequately to interrogatories
and requests for documents. This issue has been resolved by the parties and is now moot.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
As the court has denied the Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time to Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (D.E. 60) is also DENIED as
moot.

Dated: March 17, 2015
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE