SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CAUSWAVE et al
ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 03/07/2018, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation be adopted with modification and that Plaintiff Securities Exchange Commission's Motion for Discovery Sanctions [Doc. # 47 be GRANTED. FURTHER that the portion of the Answer that constitutes Jeffrey L. Riggs' Answer be deemed stricken and that the Clerk enter a default against Riggs. (Taylor, Abby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
CAUSWAVE, INC., JEFFREY L.
RIGGS, and DIANE R. BALDWIN,
On November 13, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order
and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) in which she recommended that
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Motion for Discovery
Sanctions [Doc. #47] be granted, that the portion of the Answer that constitutes
Defendant Jeffrey L. Riggs’ Answer be deemed stricken, and that default judgment
be entered against Riggs as a sanction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2) and 37(d)(1) for his willful failure to respond to interrogatories, refusal to
participate in discovery, and refusal to comply with the Court’s discovery Order.
The Recommendation was mailed to Riggs who filed a document entitled,
“Defendant Jeffrey L. Riggs Affidavit in Opposition to ‘Order & Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge[‘] as an Act Done Ultra Vires in Violation of Settled Law Cited
Herein”, [Doc. #60], which is construed as his objections to the Recommendation.
As he has done in previous filings, Riggs challenges the Magistrate Judge’s
authority to issue her Recommendation because Riggs has not consented to her
doing so. As this Court previously explained, see Order (July 6, 2017) [Doc. #52],
“[d]etermining discovery matters . . . are actions well within the Magistrate
Judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule 72.1(a)(1).”
The recommended actions here – striking the portion of the Answer that is Riggs’
Answer and the entry of default judgment against Riggs – all stem from Riggs’
conduct during discovery and in response to the Court’s discovery order and are
found in Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a rule governing sanctions
for a party’s failure to obey a court’s discovery order. Riggs’ objection is
Riggs’ having made no other specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation is adopted with modification. In addition to moving to strike the
portion of the Answer deemed to be Riggs’, the SEC moved for the Clerk to enter a
default, rather than for entry of default judgment as was recommended.
Therefore, it is determined that entry of a default, rather than default judgment, is
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation be
adopted with modification and that Plaintiff Securities Exchange Commission’s
Motion for Discovery Sanctions [Doc. #47] be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the portion of the Answer that constitutes Jeffrey L. Riggs’ Answer
be deemed stricken and that the Clerk enter a default against Riggs.
This the 7th day of March, 2018.
/s/ N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?