Perez-Lugo v. Grupo HIMA - San Pablo, Inc., et al

Filing 104

ORDER re 100 INFORMATIVE Motion regarding CMT HIMA San Pablo-Fajardo's failure to comply with order. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez-Gimenez on 5/22/2013.(VCC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
MARIA PEREZ-LUGO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIV. NO. 11-2162(PG)

GRUPO HIMA-SAN PABLO, INC., ET. AL.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On July 10, 2012, the court granted the plaintiff’s request for
production of documents (hospital protocols) but denied without prejudice her
request for sanctions against co-defendant Grupo HIMA - San Pablo, Inc.
(hereinafter “the Hospital”). See Docket No. 55. After the Hospital’s failure
to comply with this court’s order to produce, on September 19, 2012, the
Hospital was ordered to “pay the plaintiff the amount of $200.00 as a result
of its unwarranted delay in the production of the requested documents despite
this Court’s orders.” See Docket No. 65. Thereafter, on November 1, 2012, the
court once again imposed a $300 sanction upon co-defendant the Hospital “for
its undue delay in providing its answers to the plaintiff’s written discovery
requests.” See Docket No. 74. The court then warned the Hospital that if it
continued to flout this Court’s orders and rules, its conduct would result in
more severe sanctions, including, but not limited to, the entry of default
against it. See id.
Once again, the plaintiff moved to inform the court that the Hospital
has failed to comply with a court order. See Docket No. 100. Basically, the
plaintiff

complains

that

the

Hospital

did

not

provide

its

proposed

stipulations for the preparation of the joint pre-trial order by May 1st,
which was the deadline imposed by the court during the second settlement
conference held on March 19, 2013. See Docket No. 95. According to
attorneys for the plaintiff, one day after the deadline had already
elapsed, attorney for the Hospital Roberto Ruiz Comas informed them,
without more, that his client’s proposed stipulations would be provided on
May 6th, that is, 5 days after this court’s deadline. See Docket No. 100.

Civ. No. 11-2162 (PG)

Page 2

The plaintiff’s motion is unopposed, and thus, atty. Ruiz Comas fails to
explain his delay to the court.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) provides a veritable arsenal
of sanctions in the context of discovery, … , including the imposition of
default judgment against a disobedient party for failure to obey a court
order.” Companion Health Services, Inc. v. Kurtz, 675 F.3d 75, 84 (1st
Cir.2012 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The rule states
that “[i]f a party or a party’s officer, director, or managing agent …
fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, … , the court where
the

action

is

pending

may

issue

further

just

orders.”

FED.R.CIV.P.

37(b)(2)(A). These orders include:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order
or other designated facts be taken as established for
purposes of the action, as the prevailing party
claims;
(ii)
prohibiting
the
disobedient
party
from
supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses,
or from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part;
(iv) staying further proceedings until the order is
obeyed;
(v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or
in part;
(vi) rendering a default
disobedient party; or

judgment

against

the

(vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to
obey any order except an order to submit to a
physical or mental examination.
FED.R.CIV.P. 37(b)(2)(A).
To that effect, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly held
that “a party who flouts a court order does so at its own peril. See, e.g.,
Tower Ventures, Inc. v. City

of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 45–46 (1st

Cir.2002). A court faced with a disobedient litigant has wide latitude to
choose from among an armamentarium of available sanctions.” Hooper-Haas v.
Ziegler Holdings, LLC, 690 F.3d 34, 37 (1st Cir.2012) (citing Jones v.
Winnepesaukee Realty, 990 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1993)). Moreover, the First
Circuit has noted that “the judicial process depends heavily on the judge’s
credibility. To ensure such credibility, a district judge must often be
firm in managing crowded dockets and demanding adherence to announced

Civ. No. 11-2162 (PG)

Page 3

deadlines.” Legault v. Zambarano, 105 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir.1997). “If he or
she sets a reasonable due date, parties should not be allowed casually to
flout

it

or

painlessly

to

escape

the

foreseeable

consequences

of

noncompliance.” Id. (citing Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900
F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1990)). Because a court’s interest in administering its
docket is strong, “the court’s efforts at stewardship are undermined where,
as here, a party cavalierly flouts the court’s scheduling orders.” Tower
Ventures, Inc. v. City of Westfield, 296 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir.2002). See
also Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 900 F.2d 388 (1st Cir.1990) (“Courts
cannot

function

smoothly

if

parties,

and

counsel,

ignore

the

rules,

overlook due dates, or flout court orders. In this sense, sanctions may be
a useful tool in vindicating the court's authority, reminding those who
need reminding of the protocol, and ensuring orderliness in the judicial
process”).
As previously stated, the Hospital has ignored and failed to comply
with this court’s orders, thereby delaying the discovery proceedings in
this case and clogging this court’s dockets. This court has twice imposed
monetary

sanctions

upon

this

co-defendant

and

warned

of

more

severe

sanctions, and yet it still dares to flout this court’s imposed deadline to
provide

the

plaintiff

its

proposed

stipulations

by

May

1st

without

previously seeking this court’s leave or even explaining its lack of
compliance after the plaintiff has brought it to this court’s attention.
True to our word then, more severe sanctions shall be imposed.
Therefore, as a result of the Hospital’s multiple failures to adhere
to this court’s orders, we hereby rule that all of plaintiff’s stipulations
regarding the Hospital will be deemed accepted and true for purposes of
trial, and all of the Hospital’s stipulations to the contrary and/or
against the plaintiff will be rejected.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 22, 2013.
S/ JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ
JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE