Shealy v. Rock Hill, City of et al
Filing
101
ORDER directing Shealy to appear for a deposition at a time and place pursuant to notice by the defendants in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but no later than May 2, 2018, staying all proceedings in this matter until Shealy obeys this order, and holding the defendants' 88 motion to dismiss in abeyance pending Shealy's compliance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 4/4/2018. (bgoo) (Main Document 101 replaced on 4/4/2018 to correct scrivener's error.) (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jay Patton Shealy,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Rock Hill; Rock Hill Police
Department; York County Detention Center,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 0:17-1194-TLW-PJG
ORDER
The plaintiff, Jay Patton Shealy, a self-represented litigant, filed this civil rights action
against the named defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) on the defendants’ motion to
dismiss the complaint as a sanction for Shealy’s failure to appear at his deposition. (ECF No. 88.)
Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Shealy of the
summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond
adequately to the defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 90.) Shealy responded in opposition to the
defendants’ motion (ECF No. 95), and the defendants replied (ECF No. 97).1 Having reviewed the
parties’ submissions and the applicable law, the court concludes that the sanction of dismissal is not
appropriate at this time and orders lesser sanctions with leave for the defendants to renew their
motion if appropriate.
1
Shealy also filed two sur-replies. (ECF Nos. 98 & 99.) The Local Civil Rules make no
provision for sur-replies. However, consideration of Shealy’s sur-replies would not affect resolution
of the defendants’ motion.
Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND
Shealy initiated this action against the defendants in April 2017 in the York County Court
of Common Pleas, which the defendants subsequently removed to the United States District Court.
The court issued a scheduling order initially setting a deadline of December 1, 2017, by which the
parties were to conduct discovery. (ECF No. 5.) Shealy filed multiple motions seeking to extend
or suspend deadlines due, in part, to his health issues and hospitalization. The discovery deadline
was ultimately extended to March 2, 2018. (ECF No. 84.)
The defendants state in their motion that they unsuccessfully attempted to contact Shealy in
January 2018 in an attempt to schedule his deposition. (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF
No. 88-1 at 1.) They then noticed Shealy’s deposition for March 1, 2018, at the Law Center Building
in Rock Hill, South Carolina at 10:00 a.m., and notice of the deposition was sent to Shealy via
United States Postal Service first class postage prepaid and Certified Mail at his address of record
in this case. (ECF No. 88-2.) Shealy failed to appear for his deposition and did not make any
attempt to communicate with the defendants’ counsel regarding his failure to appear or to reschedule
the deposition. Accordingly, the defendants subsequently moved to dismiss for Shealy’s failure to
participate in discovery. (ECF No. 88.)
DISCUSSION
A.
Applicable Standards
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to enter orders
compelling discovery and to impose an array of sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with such
orders. If a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, the court may issue an order
“dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). A party’s
Page 2 of 6
failure, after being served with proper notice, to attend his own deposition or respond to discovery
may be sanctioned by the court as provided in Rule 37(b)(2)(A). Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1), (3).
Similarly, Rule 41(b) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure
to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or an order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
see Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989).
When exercising its discretion to impose sanctions under Rule 37, a court should consider:
“(1) whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice his
noncompliance caused his adversary, which necessarily includes an inquiry into the materiality of
the evidence he failed to produce; (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of noncompliance;
and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions.” Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards &
Assocs. Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989). In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant
to Rule 41(b), the court is required to apply four factors: (1) the degree of personal responsibility
on the part of the plaintiff; (2) the amount of prejudice to the defendant due to the delay; (3) the
history of the plaintiff in proceeding in a dilatory manner; and (4) the effectiveness of sanctions less
drastic sanctions than dismissal. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978). “Courts have
held that because the standard for dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 is virtually identical to that for
dismissal for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, ‘the Court can combine its analysis of the
question whether dismissal is appropriate under’ both Rules.” Woods v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
C/A No. 3:10-3160-SVH, 2012 WL 601872, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2012) (citation omitted).
B.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
The defendants seek dismissal of this action due to Shealy’s failure to appear to testify at his
deposition. (ECF No. 88.) In the alternative, they seek reimbursement from Shealy for the costs and
Page 3 of 6
attorneys fees incurred as a result of his failure to appear and for an order compelling Shealy to
submit to a deposition. (Id.)
In response to the defendants’ motion, Shealy argues that he and defendants’ counsel never
agreed on a time and date for the deposition; that he was not able to attend his deposition because
he had to drive his brother to work; that he did not feel comfortable at the location where the
deposition was scheduled; and that he was advised not to attend the deposition without legal counsel.
(ECF No. 95.) He also implies that he can not afford to reimburse the defendants’ costs and
expenses. (Id.)
Here, the record reflects that the defendants properly noticed Shealy’s deposition. (See ECF
No. 88-2 at 2.) The defendants note that they were unable to reach or receive any response from
Shealy regarding scheduling his deposition; thus, the time and date of the deposition were not
mutually agreed upon. (Defs.’ Reply, ECF No. 96 at 1.) However, due to the approaching discovery
deadline, the defendants noticed Shealy’s deposition at a location central to all parties. (Id.) The
defendants also point out that several of Shealy’s arguments in response clearly establish that Shealy
was aware of the date, time, location, and purpose of the deposition, and that he choose to not attend
his deposition without any notification to the defendants. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, the court is not
persuaded by Shealy’s arguments and finds that the defendants properly and timely noticed Shealy’s
deposition, and that Shealy, despite having received proper notice, failed to attend his deposition.
Although pro se litigants are entitled to some deference from courts, see, e.g., Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), they are nonetheless subject to the same requirements and respect for
court orders as other litigants. See Ballard, 882 F.2d at 96. Considering the factors established by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the court concludes that Shealy has
Page 4 of 6
exhibited bad faith by failing to appear to testify at his deposition. The prejudice caused to the
defendants by Shealy’s noncompliance is two-fold: not only did the defendants incur expenses and
expend significant time in attempting to take Shealy’s deposition, but the defendants were not able
to depose Shealy, thereby hindering the defendants’ ability to defend themselves against the
allegations brought by Shealy in his Complaint. Additionally, because of the importance of
discovery to any litigation, the need for deterrence of Shealy’s conduct—that is, bringing a lawsuit
against defendants and then refusing to participate in the discovery process in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—is great. Moreover, as Shealy appears to have no ability to pay
monetary sanctions, an order to pay costs and fees would likely have little deterrent effect. See
Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 263 (3d Cir. 2008) (finding that monetary sanctions were not a
viable alternative to dismissal because the plaintiff was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis).
Nonetheless, the court finds that other relevant factors discussed above weigh against outright
dismissal of Shealy’s complaint at this time. Although Shealy’s failure to appear for his deposition
was unjustified, it is apparently the first instance of any failure to cooperate in the discovery process
on his part during this litigation. Moreover, other sanctions available under Rule 37 less drastic than
dismissal may address Shealy’s noncompliance. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Shealy APPEAR for a deposition at a time and place pursuant to notice by
the defendants in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but no later than May 2,
2018. It is further
ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter are hereby STAYED pursuant to Rule 37
(d)(3) and Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iv) until Shealy obeys this order. It is further
Page 5 of 6
ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending
Shealy’s compliance. Failure to comply with this order may result in further sanctions pursuant to
Rule 37(b), including but not limited to dismissal of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 4, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?