The Inspirational Network, Inc. v. TMH Telemedia Services Limited et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 12/7/2010. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

-DSC The Inspirational Network, Inc. v. TMH Telemedia Services Limited et al

Doc. 31

1.
C H -3 0 3 5 8 1 5 v3

-1IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

THE INSPIRATIONAL NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff, vs. TMH TELEMEDIA SERVICES LIMITED and TMH TELEMEDIA SERVICES, INC., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 3:10-CV-110-RJC-DSC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff The Inspirational Network, Inc.'s "Motion to Compel" (document #24). Pro se Defendant TMH Telemedia Services Limited ("TMH UK") has not responded to the Motion and the time for filing a brief or other response has expired.1 Having considered the filings and the pleadings, it appears to the Court that Defendant TMH UK has failed to properly, adequately, and sufficiently respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents ("Discovery Requests"). The Fourth Circuit has emphasized the significance of establishing a history of dilatory action and warning to the offending party of what may follow prior to imposing sanctions for failure to comply with discovery obligations. See, e.g., Hathcock v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp.,

On November 17, 2010, the Court granted Defendant TMH UK's counsel's Motion to W ith d r a w . See " O r d e r " (document #27). On November 18, 2010, the Court warned Defendant that if it did not retain replacement c o u n s e l , it faced entry of default judgment. See "Order" (document #28). The time period for Defendant to retain n e w counsel expired December 6, 2010, but Plaintiff has yet to file a motion for entry of default judgment.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

55 F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995); Choice Hotels Int'l v. Goodwin & Boone, 11 F.3d 469, 473 (4th Cir. 1993); and Lolatchy v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 816 F.2d 951, 953 (4th Cir. 1987). Applying those legal principles to this case, and recognizing that Defendant TMH UK has not been warned previously of the likely consequences of its failure to perform its discovery obligations, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, but will withhold imposition of sanctions pending Defendant's compliance with this Order. Accordingly, the Court warns Defendant TMH UK that any failure to respond to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, or to any of Plaintiff's other reasonable discovery requests, or to otherwise comply fully with any of the Court's Orders, the Local Rules, or the Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions can include Defendant being required to pay Plaintiff's costs,

including reasonable attorneys' fees, and may also include entry of default judgment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED. Defendant TMH UK shall serve

supplemental written responses to each of Plaintiff's Discovery Requests and produce all of the documents requested by Plaintiff within 15 days of this Order. 2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the pro se Defendant (c/o Stuart

Freeman, Chairman, TMH Telemedia Services, Ltd., 10 St. Peters Court, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1WD); to counsel for the other parties; and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 7, 2010