Tapley et al v. Buysse et al

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 18 Motion for Sanctions (sdc, Dpty Clk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Ron Tapley, on behalf of himself and
in the right of Tapley Unlimited, LLC,
an Oklahoma limited liability company,
Plaintiff,)
v.
ROBERT D. BUYSSE and MITCHELL
CLARK,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 18-CV-165-GKF-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant’s Motion for Court to Order Sanctions as to Plaintiff’s in Accordance with
Rule 37(b)(d)(i), (sic) [Dkt. 18], which seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s case with prejudice as
a sanction for Plaintiff’s alleged failure to appear at his deposition has been fully briefed and
is ready for decision.
There is a dispute between counsel about whether the attorneys agreed that
Plaintiffs would be deposed in this case on May 11, 2018. Plaintiff’s attorney says the May
11, 2108 depositions were only for pending state cases while Defendants’ attorney says
the agreement included this case.
The court need not resolve the attorneys’ dispute because even if the agreement for
the depositions included this case, Defendants’ motion for sanctions completely fails to
discuss the relevant factors to support the request for dismissal with prejudice. Ehrenhaus
v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992).

Defendants’ Motion for Court to Order Sanctions as to Plaintiff’s in Accordance with
Rule 37(b)(d)(i), (sic) [Dkt. 18], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2018.

2