McAfee v. Howard Baer, Inc. et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 81 Motion for Sanctions. The Court also INSTRUCTS Plaintiff that the filing of any further discovery motions in this case may result in the imposition of sanctions against counsel for Plaintiff for continuing to disregard the lawful orders of this Court. The Court further INSTRUCTS the parties that no extension of time to file dispositive motions shall be granted by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 09/26/17. (emw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:15cv182
MERCEDES KAMARIA POWELL
MCAFEE,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HOWARD BAER, INC. and
)
KEITH LOVELL CAMPBELL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Sanctions [# 81]. Plaintiff moves
for sanctions pursuant to Rules 30 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
as the result of Defendants’ alleged failure to produce a knowledgeable witness at a
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiff filed the motion on September 22, 2017.
Previously, the Court denied a motion seeking an extension of time to
complete discovery and instructed the parties that discovery in this case was
closed. (Order, September 5, 2017, ECF No. 80.) The Court also instructed the
parties as follows:
Discovery in this case is CLOSED and this Court will not reopen
discovery or grant any further extensions of time in this case.
Moreover, as the Court stated in its prior Order: “Any discovery motion
must be filed by August 1, 2017.” (Order, May, 23, 2017, ECF No.
73.) Accordingly, any discovery motion filed by Plaintiff will be
summarily denied and Defendant need not respond to any such motion.
1

(Id.) In complete disregard of this Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed a discovery
motion three weeks later seeking an order from this Court sanctioning Defendants
for alleged discovery abuses. As the Court previously informed Plaintiff,
discovery in this case is CLOSED. Any such discovery motions were due by
August 1, 2017. Plaintiff’s motion is nearly two months late and will not be
considered by the Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion [# 81]. The
Court also INSTRUCTS Plaintiff that the filing of any further discovery motions
in this case may result in the imposition of sanctions against counsel for Plaintiff
for continuing to disregard the lawful orders of this Court. The Court further
INSTRUCTS the parties that no extension of time to file dispositive motions shall
be granted by the Court.

Signed: September 26, 2017

2