Securities and Exchange Commission v. McAdams et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting 85 Motion to Compel; granting 103 Motion to Compel; finding as moot 104 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 05/31/2012.(dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
M. MARK McADAMS and R. DANE
FREEMAN,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-0701-TLW-TER

ORDER

In this action, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
(“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b). Both Defendants are proceeding pro se. Presently before the
Court are Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel (Documents # 85, 103) and Motion to Stay Scheduling
Order (Document # 104). All pretrial proceedings have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C.

In its first Motion to Compel (Document # 85), Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling
Defendant M. Mark McAdams to appear for deposition. Defendant McAdams has not responded
to the Motion. On October 6, 2011, Plaintiff noticed McAdams’ deposition for 10:00 a.m. on
November 16, 2011, at A. William Roberts Reporting in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Counsel
for Plaintiff appeared for the deposition. At 11:00 a.m., counsel for Plaintiff went on record to
document Defendant McAdams’ failure to appear at the deposition.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Document # 85) is granted. Defendant McAdams must appear
at his deposition as scheduled by Plaintiff within twenty days of the date of this Order. Failure to

abide by this order may result in sanctions as provided in Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P.
In its second Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Freeman to respond to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Defendant Freeman has not responded to
the Motion. Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendant Freeman on August 2, 2011.
Defendant Freeman has failed to provide any responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Plaintiff’s
second Motion to Compel is granted. Defendant Freeman is directed to serve responses to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests, including sworn answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and production of
documents requested in Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this Order. Failure to abide by this Order may result in sanctions, up to and including, a
recommendation that Defendant Freeman’s Answer be stricken and that he be held in default, in
accordance with Rule 37, Fed.R.Civ.P.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s first Motion to Compel (Document # 85) is
GRANTED and Defendant McAdams must make himself available for deposition within twenty
days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s second Motion to Compel (Document # 103) is
GRANTED and Defendant Freeman must serve responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests
for Production within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Document
# 104) is MOOT. An Amended Scheduling Order is entered herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
May 31, 2012
Florence, South Carolina