Brough Trucking LLC v. Truck Doctor Inc et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Order for Entry of Default Judgment without prejudice to refiling, if appropriate. See Order for details. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 11/25/2024. (tb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
)
)
)
)
) Case No. CIV-24-412-R
)
)
)
)
)

BROUGH TRUCKING LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRUCK DOCTOR, INC., an Oklahoma
Corporation, and John Does 1-5,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Entry of Default Judgement and
for Attorney Fees and Costs [Doc. No. 14]. Plaintiff’s motion requests that default
judgment be entered against Defendant Truck Doctor pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)
for failure to comply with the Court’s prior order [Doc. No. 13] directing Defendant to
provide discovery responses and pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. At the time of the filing of
Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant had paid the attorney’s fees (sixteen days after the deadline)
but had still not provided any discovery responses.
Defendant filed a (somewhat perfunctory) response in opposition [Doc. No. 15]
asserting that he has now provided discovery responses and is ready to proceed in earnest
with this case. Plaintiff then submitted a reply [Doc. No. 16] detailing the numerous
deficiencies in Defendant’s discovery responses and reiterating that neither the responses
nor the monetary sanction were submitted by the Court’s deadline.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), the Court may order sanctions if “a
party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule
1

26(f), 35, or 37(a).” Sanctions for failure to provide or permit discovery may include
rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). To
determine if default judgment is an appropriate sanction, courts consider “(1) the degree of
actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process;
(3) the culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that
dismissal of the action would be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy
of lesser sanctions.” Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). “Only when the aggravating factors outweigh the
judicial system’s strong predisposition to resolve cases on their merits is dismissal an
appropriate sanction.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
Here, Defendant’s failure to cooperate in discovery and failure to comply with the
Court’s prior order has caused unnecessary burdens on Plaintiff and the Court and
interfered with the judicial process. Defendant’s failure to offer any explanation for this
dilatory conduct is particularly troubling and suggests a disregard for the Court’s deadlines
and applicable procedural rules. Nevertheless, given that Defendant has paid the previously
imposed monetary sanction, made some effort to provide the requested discovery
responses, and represents that it is now ready to participate in earnest in this litigation, the
Court concludes that entry of a default judgment would not be a just sanction at this time.
Defendant is, however, advised that the Court will not tolerate further dilatory
conduct and that a failure to comply with Court orders, applicable procedural rules, and
deadlines will result in sanctions, up to and including the entry of default judgment. The
Court also notes that many of the Defendant’s discovery responses are deficient on their
2

face. Defendant is therefore instructed to provide amended discovery responses within
fourteen days of the date of this Order. Should any issues with the adequacy of the
discovery responses remain, the parties are directed to confer in good faith and make a
sincere attempt to resolve the issues before seeking further Court intervention.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for Entry of Default Judgement and for
Attorney Fees and Costs [Doc. No. 14] is DENIED without prejudice to refiling, if
appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3