Cooper v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Objections to Judge Buchanan's Orders [Dkts. 32, 54, 68, 75, 76], adoption of Judge Buchanan's Report and Recommendations [Dkt. 74], and Dismissal of Pltf's Complaint with prejudice. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 02/14/17. (pmil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
TAWANA JEAN COOPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

M E M O R A N D U M

1:16cv547(JCC/TCB)

O P I N I O N

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Tawana
Jean Cooper’s Objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72 regarding orders entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa
Buchanan [Dkts. 32, 54, 68, 75, 76].

Also before the Court is

Judge Buchanan’s Report and Recommendations [Dkt. 74], which
recommends that the Court dismiss this case due to Plaintiff’s
failure to meet her discovery obligations.

For the reasons that

follow, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s Objections, adopt
Judge Buchanan’s Report and Recommendations, and dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice.
I. Background
Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc.

The chain of events giving rise to

this suit began when one of Plaintiff’s coworkers criticized her

work performance in a manner that she deemed “intentionally
hurtful, spiteful, and cruel, and extremely disrespectful and
indecorous.”

Compl. [Dkt. 1] ¶ 16.

This ultimately led to

Plaintiff lodging a series of complaints that she believed were
not taken seriously due to her gender.

After a number of

confrontations with her superiors regarding her complaints and a
complaint lodged by a coworker against her, Plaintiff was
terminated.

On May 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit pro se

against Defendant alleging violations of Title VII.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) authorizes
magistrate judges to enter final orders on non-dispositive
pretrial matters. If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s
ruling on a non-dispositive matter, a district court judge may
set it aside if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
Id.; FEC v. Christian Coalition, 178 F.R.D. 456, 459 (E.D. Va.
1998).

This standard is deferential, and the magistrate judge’s

ruling will be affirmed unless the entire record leaves the
Court with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.”
1985).

Harman v. Levin, 772 F.2d 1150, 1153 (4th Cir.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), when

a magistrate judge issues a Report and Recommendations on a
dispositive matter, the district court reviews it de novo.

2

In evaluating Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court is
mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se.

Be

that as it may, “[a]lthough pro se litigants are given liberal
treatment by courts, even pro se litigants are expected to
comply with time requirements and other procedural rules
‘without which effective judicial administration would be
impossible.’”

Dancy v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Charlotte, No.

3:08-CV-166-RJC-DCK, 2009 WL 2424039, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 3,
2009) (quoting Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F .2d 93, 96 (4th
Cir.1989)).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff objects to virtually every Order entered by
Judge Buchanan in the course of these proceedings, as well as
Judge Buchanan’s Report and Recommendations.

As the merits of

Plaintiff’s various Rule 72 Objections turn on the procedural
history of this case, the Court discusses both together.
A. Defendant’s First Motion to Compel and Plaintiff’s
First Objection
This saga began in earnest on October 21, 2016, when
Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order and to Compel
[Dkt. 18].

At the time, both parties had propounded discovery

requests, and Defendant had asked that a protective order be
entered before turning over proprietary business information.
Plaintiff refused to consent to a protective order, claiming

3

that she intended to publicize materials received in discovery
through a book and blog.

Plaintiff further refused to provide

any responses to Defendant’s discovery requests or schedule her
own deposition until Defendant turned over its sensitive
materials “[a]nd not a moment sooner.”

Opp. [Dkt. 24] at 6.

Defendant’s Motion sought the entry of what, in most cases,
would have been a stipulated protective order, and to compel
Plaintiff’s discovery responses.
On October 28, 2016, Judge Buchanan held a hearing and
granted Defendant’s Motion.

Judge Buchanan thereafter entered

an Order [Dkt. 27] instating Defendant’s requested protective
order, requiring Plaintiff to submit her discovery responses
within a week, and further requiring Plaintiff to cooperate with
Defendant to schedule her own deposition.
Plaintiff filed a Rule 72(a) Objection [Dkt. 32] to
Judge Buchanan’s Order on November 7, 2016.

In it, Plaintiff

argues first that Defendant did not show good cause for a
protective order.

In light of the sensitive business documents

requested by Plaintiff, see Mem. in Supp. of Mot. [Dkt. 19] at
4, the Court concurs with Judge Buchanan’s finding that good
cause existed for the protective order.

See, e.g., Sheets v.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-72 (GROH), 2015 WL
7756156, at *5 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 1, 2015).

As Judge Buchanan

noted, Plaintiff remained free to contest the designation of
4

specific documents she believed to be improperly designated as
confidential.
Plaintiff argues further that the protective order
violated her rights under the First Amendment.

As Plaintiff

acknowledges in her Objection, however, “a protective order
[that is] entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule
26(c), is limited to the context of pretrial civil discovery,
and does not restrict the dissemination of the information if
gained from other sources, . . . does not offend the First
Amendment.”
(1984).

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37

Such is the case here.
Plaintiff further objects to Judge Buchanan’s Order

insofar as it required that she provide discovery responses and
schedule her own deposition.

Plaintiff argues that she should

not have been required to do so until Defendant provided its own
discovery responses.

Plaintiff, however, is incorrect that her

own discovery obligations are or have at any point been
contingent upon Defendant’s performance of its discovery
obligations.

Moreover, as Judge Buchanan noted, Defendant had

reasonably withheld sensitive materials pending the entry of a
protective order and agreed to turn them over once the order was
entered.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, had no comparable reason

to withhold discovery responses.

Judge Buchanan therefore

5

rightly ordered Plaintiff to abide by her own discovery
obligations.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Judge Buchanan’s Order
should be set aside because Judge Buchanan “discriminated
against Plaintiff” and struck a “disrespectful, hostile,
aggressive, and authoritarian” tone during the hearing on this
matter.

Having reviewed the recording of the hearing, however,

the Court finds that it was in fact Plaintiff who acted in a
disrespectful, hostile, and aggressive manner:
Judge Buchanan: What about your answers?
Plaintiff: I will give them my responses
when they give me their responses.
Judge Buchanan: That’s not the way it
works. If their responses – their responses
are going to be given to you now. But yours
are overdue.
Plaintiff: Theirs is overdue.
Judge Buchanan: I understand that, but you
wouldn’t sign a protective order. They’re
I’m sure going to file their responses or
give you their responses promptly. When are
they going to be provided?
Defendant’s Counsel: Oh yeah, definitely
within a week your honor.
Judge Buchan: OK. So I assume that you can
provide your responses within a week as
well, not waiting for them, but by next
Friday.
Plaintiff: Absolutely not.
Judge Buchanan: Why?
Plaintiff: Because, I gave them my –
Judge Buchanan: Ma’am, OK, I’m not going
to repeat this –
Plaintiff: OK, OK.
Judge Buchanan: You have to produce your
discovery –
Plaintiff: Well I’m not going to do it.
6

Judge Buchanan: – responses. You did not
bring a motion to compel.
Plaintiff: Yes I, well I answered them –
Judge Buchanan: No you didn’t, you opposed
their motion.
Plaintiff: OK well I take exception and I
will appeal your Order.
Judge Buchanan: Go right ahead.
Plaintiff: I will.
Judge Buchanan: You have to produce your
discovery responses by next Friday. I’m sure
that they will produce them by then as well,
but you have to produce yours by next
Friday, period.
Plaintiff: Well I’m not going to do it.
Judge Buchanan: Well, I hope you do
because I’d hate to sanction you, which is
what’s going to happen if you don’t produce
them by next Friday.
Plaintiff: I will not do it I’m letting
you know that right now, I am not going to
do it.
Judge Buchanan: Ma’am, why would you not
do it?
Plaintiff: I have already explained that
in my opposition. Now, if you don’t want to
be fair and impartial to me –
Judge Buchanan: Ma’am . . .
Plaintiff: – which you are not being fair
and impartial then there is nothing I can do
about that. I have the right to appeal your
decision –
Judge Buchanan: Absolutely –
Plaintiff: – and I will do that.
Judge Buchanan: – you have the right –
Plaintiff: And I take exception –
Judge Buchanan: Ma’am I’m just –
Plaintiff: – and I object.
Judge Buchanan: – warning you here.
Plaintiff: I understand and I accept your
warning but I’m not going to do it.
Hearing Audio (Oct. 28, 2016) at 10:31:38.
of open disregard for the Court’s authority.

Thus began a pattern

7

B. The Parties’ First Cross Motions for Sanctions and
Plaintiff’s Second Objection
On November 7, 2016, Defendant filed an Emergency
Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 28].

Defendant contended that it

had, consistent with its representations to Judge Buchanan at
the prior hearing, produced to Plaintiff all of its outstanding
discovery responses.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, still

refused to produce anything or schedule her own deposition.
Responding to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff justified her
continued reticence by claiming that Defendant’s discovery
production had been inadequate:
In its big time
EMERGENCY
Motion for
Sanctions against Plaintiff, FedEx Ground
stated that it delivered its discovery
responses to Plaintiff. This is not true.
FedEx Ground did not deliver its discovery
responses to Plaintiff. Instead, on or about
November 2, 2016, FedEx Ground delivered to
Plaintiff what amounted to nothing but a
bunch of TRASH documents.
Opp. [Dkt. 40] at 8.

Plaintiff also took issue with Defendant’s

refusal to correlate its document production to her various
interrogatories, contending that Judge Buchanan had ordered
Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without
objection at the previous hearing.

The Court assumes Plaintiff

to be referring to the following exchange:
Judge Buchanan (to Plaintiff): They’re I’m
sure going to file their responses or give
you their responses promptly. When are they
going to be provided?
8

Defendant’s Counsel: Oh yeah, definitely
within a week your honor.
Judge Buchan: OK.
Judge Buchanan’s Order does not mention Defendant’s discovery
obligations.

Plaintiff then filed her own Motions to Compel

[Dkt. 33] and for Sanctions [Dkt. 34], based on Defendant’s
ostensible failure to comply with Judge Buchanan’s prior Order.
On November 15, 2016, Judge Buchanan issued an Order
[Dkt. 38] granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and denying
Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel and for Sanctions.

Judge Buchanan

found that “most, if not all, of plaintiff’s interrogatories
[were] improper, and, to a large extent, not relevant to the
claims and defenses in this case.”

Id. at 2.

Judge Buchanan

therefore sustained Defendant’s objections and held that
Defendant would not be required to correlate its production to
Plaintiff’s interrogatories.

Judge Buchanan found further that

Plaintiff had disobeyed the Court’s previous Order, as
“plaintiff’s requirement to provide discovery responses and
deposition dates was not dependent upon defendant providing
discovery responses that were satisfactory to plaintiff.”

Id.

Accordingly, Judge Buchanan required Plaintiff to submit her
discovery responses within a week and to attend a deposition on
a date to be set by the Court.
Plaintiff filed a Rule 72(a) Objection [Dkt. 54] to
Judge Buchanan’s Order on November 28, 2016.
9

In it, Plaintiff

contends that Judge Buchanan “willfully turned a blind eye to
the clear fact that it was FedEx Ground and not Plaintiff that
disobeyed the Magistrate Court’s Order.”

Id. at 6.

Judge

Buchanan, however, was correct both that her earlier order did
not pertain to Defendant’s discovery obligations, and that
Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were well
taken.

Plaintiff’s interrogatories were, on their face, largely

argumentative, and many assumed facts not in evidence.
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 9, for example, read:
Please explain fully why you neglected to
ensure that Demetris would stay away from
Plaintiff even though you believed that
Demetris might have committed workplace
violence against Plaintiff.
Judge Buchanan was further correct that Plaintiff’s obligation
to produce her discovery responses and comply with the Court’s
prior Order did not rest on Plaintiff’s satisfaction with
Defendant’s discovery responses.

Moreover, the Court is frankly

puzzled that Plaintiff would argue that “it was FedEx Ground and
not Plaintiff that disobeyed the Magistrate Court’s Order” when
Plaintiff admittedly had failed to turn over a single document
as ordered.
Plaintiff contends further that Judge Buchanan “acted
as Co-Counsel for FedEx Ground,” and that Judge Buchanan “denied
Plaintiff her lawful right to a fair and impartial Court” under
the Fifth Amendment.

Objection [Dkt. 54] at 6-7.
10

The Court

disagrees.

Despite the fact that Plaintiff openly defied Judge

Buchanan’s prior Order, Judge Buchanan imposed a relatively
minor sanction – one that, more or less, required only that
Plaintiff comply with an Order she had previously disobeyed.
Judge Buchanan would have been justified in imposing a harsher
sanction, particularly in light of the exchange at the October
28, 2016 hearing, during which Judge Buchanan expressly warned
Plaintiff that she would face sanctions if she choose to do
precisely what she ultimately did.
C. The Parties’ Second Round of Cross Motions for
Sanctions and Plaintiff’s Third Objection
On November 22, 2016, Defendant filed its Second
Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 49].

Defendant contended that

Plaintiff had, on the deadline set by the Court in its previous
Order, provided a response to Defendant’s various discovery
requests.

Plaintiff’s response, however, was grossly deficient.

While it did include some relevant documents, Plaintiff’s
production failed to address many of Defendant’s discovery
requests.

Plaintiff also refused to provide answers to a number

of interrogatories, claiming that the requested information was
“not relevant” or “not applicable” when in fact it was selfevidently both “relevant” and “applicable.”

When these

deficiencies were brought to Plaintiff’s attention, she
responded that she would provide nothing further:

11

Notwithstanding my appropriate objections, I
have provided Defendant FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") with all of
its discovery requests that are in my
possession on or about yesterday, Wednesday,
November 16, 2016 pursuant to THERESA’s
order filed and dated on or about Tuesday,
November 15, 2016. I have absolutely NOTHING
MORE to provide to FedEx Ground regarding
its discovery requests. ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING.
MORE.
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Sanctions Exh. C [Dkt. 50-3].
Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion was
similarly characterized by bluster and vitriol:
Well. Well. Well. Here they go again. FedEx
Ground and its “prodigy” counsel have filed
yet another crybaby motion for special
treatment. Waste the taxpayers’ money with
hollow motions is all that these people know
how to do. They only do this because they
know that Judge Buchanan is a judge that
discriminates
against
and
bullies
nonattorney Pro Se litigants. However, as
Plaintiff has made very, very clear many,
many times she WILL NOT be bullied out of
her constitutional rights to a Fair and
Impartial Court.
Opp. [Dkt. 52] at 3.

Plaintiff did not contend that Defendant’s

discovery requests were improper, as Judge Buchanan had
(correctly) found Plaintiff’s to be.

Rather, Plaintiff again

took the position that she would comply with her discovery
obligations only to the extent she deemed Defendant to have done
so.

Plaintiff then filed another Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 56]

that in substance reiterated what she had argued in her prior
Motion for Sanctions.
12

On December 2, 2016, Judge Buchanan issued an Order
[Dkt. 61] again granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and
denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.

Judge Buchanan’s

Order required Plaintiff to supplement her discovery production
by December 8, 2016, and warned that “[i]f plaintiff fails to
comply with this Order, there will be no additional chances
given to so comply and sanctions will be imposed.”

Id.

On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Rule
72(a) Objection [Dkt. 68] to Judge Buchanan’s Order.

In the

Objection, Plaintiff again takes issue with Judge Buchanan’s
determination that Plaintiff’s interrogatories were improper.
As discussed above, however, Judge Buchanan’s conclusion on this
point was well supported.
Plaintiff also argues that Judge Buchanan erred in not
requiring Defendant to turn over video footage and audio
recordings she claimed Defendant to have in its possession.
Defendant, however, claimed that it had turned over all such
recordings it possessed.

Judge Buchanan credited this

representation, and the Court has before it no reason to second
guess Judge Buchanan’s decision.
Finally, Plaintiff repeats her claim that she cannot
be sanctioned for “behaving in the exact same manner as”
Defendant.

Objection [Dkt. 68] at 5.

This again reflects

Plaintiff’s fundamental misapprehension regarding her discovery
13

obligations.

The requirement that Plaintiff comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s discovery
orders is in no way contingent upon her belief that Defendant
has done so.
D. The Parties’ Third Round of Cross Motions for
Sanctions and Plaintiff’s Fourth Objection
Defendant filed its Third Motion for Sanctions [Dkt.
62] on December 9, 2016.

It reported that Plaintiff had again

refused to comply with Judge Buchanan’s Order, missing the
deadline to submit her supplemental discovery and skipping her
Court-ordered deposition.

See Order [Dkt. 48].

Rather than

comply, Plaintiff continued to respond to Defendant’s inquiries
with acerbic emails that she must have assumed would be brought
to the Court’s attention, as her previous emails had been:
FedEx Ground and its “prodigy” counsel have
received SPECIAL TREATMENT from THERESA yet
again. . . .
Is this the point at which I am to be
nervous or afraid or, or, or? (with a smile)
I know. I got it. This is the point at which
I am supposed to be SHAKING IN MY BOOTS!
(with a smile)
Well, I’m. [sic] So, that’s not it either!
(with a smile)
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Sanctions Exh. A [Dkt. 63-1].

In

response to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff simply reiterated her
earlier argument that she had “clearly complied with Judge
Buchanan’s Orders in the exact same manner that FedEx Ground has
complied with Judge Buchanan’s Orders.”
14

Opp. [Dkt. 70] at 4.

Plaintiff also escalated her attacks on opposing counsel and the
Court:
2. Instead of working with Plaintiff in her
good faith effort to resolve the instant
discovery disputes, FedEx Ground insists on
making
and
filing
“crybaby”
meritless
motions for special treatment because FedEx
Ground knows that Judge Buchanan is the type
of judge that discriminates and bullies nonattorney Pro Se litigants.
3. Throughout Plaintiff’s action, FedEx
Ground
has
grown
accustomed
to
Judge
Buchanan’s blatant willful discrimination
against and bullying of Plaintiff.
4. Although Judge Buchanan had made a very
poor attempt to LIE by omitting material and
pertinent facts in her Order dated and filed
on or about November 15, 2016 (ECF No. 38,
page 1, ¶l) when she said “. . . defendant
indicated
that
it
could
provide
its
discovery responses to plaintiff by November
2, 2016 . . .” the TRUTH is that on or about
October 28, 2016, Judge Buchanan had ORDERED
FedEx Ground to respond to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests, and for Plaintiff to
respond
to
FedEx
Ground’s
discovery
requests.
Id. at 2.

Plaintiff claimed to be “INSULTED by th[e] outlandish

LIE” that she had “refused a deposition,” id. at 4, but did not
deny or explain skipping the deposition ordered by the Court.
Moreover, while Plaintiff again reiterated that she had given
Defendant everything she had to which Defendant was entitled in
discovery – a claim that, given the documents sought, the Court
finds dubious – she did not elaborate on this claim or explain

15

why she had not, at the very least, amended her written answers
to Defendant’s interrogatories as ordered.
Plaintiff then filed another Motion for Sanctions
[Dkt. 65], which in substance again only reiterated arguments
previously rejected by the Court.

The only appreciable

difference was the insinuation that Judge Buchanan conspired
with Defendant to keep Plaintiff from obtaining crucial
evidence.

See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. [Dkt. 66] at 4.
On December 16, 2016, Judge Buchanan entered another

Order [Dkt. 73] again granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions
and denying Plaintiff’s Motion.

This time, however, the

sanctions entailed more than simple compliance with previous
Court orders.

Finding that Plaintiff had again disobeyed a

lawful Court Order and deprived Defendant of a meaningful
opportunity for discovery, Judge Buchanan prohibited Plaintiff
from entering evidence or presenting witnesses at trial.

The

Order further assessed against Plaintiff $2,571.93 – the cost of
the Court-ordered deposition Plaintiff had skipped.
On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed another Rule
72(a) Objection [Dkt. 75] to Judge Buchanan’s prior Order.

In

it, she largely reiterates arguments discussed and rejected
above, and particularly her claim that she cannot be sanctioned
because “Plaintiff has clearly complied with the Magistrate
Court’s Order in the exact same manner that FedEx Ground has
16

complied with the Magistrate Court’s Order.”

Id. at 3.

For the

reasons discussed above, this Objection is meritless.
E. Judge Buchanan’s Report and Recommendations and
Plaintiff’s Fifth Objection
On December 16, 2016, the same day Judge Buchanan
issued the Order barring Plaintiff from introducing evidence and
witnesses at trial, Judge Buchanan also issued a Report and
Recommendations [Dkt. 74].

In it, Judge Buchanan recounts the

events discussed above and concludes that Plaintiff does not
intend to comply with her discovery obligations or Court orders.
Judge Buchanan therefore recommends dismissing this action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v),
which expressly permits the Court to “dismiss[ ] the action or
proceeding in whole or in part” where a party disobeys discovery
orders.
Plaintiff filed a Rule 72(b) Objection [Dkt. 76] to
the Report and Recommendations on December 30, 2016.

The

Objection repeats Plaintiff’s refrain that “Plaintiff clearly
had complied with Judge Buchanan’s Order in the exact same
manner that FedEx Ground had complied with Judge Buchanan’s
Order.”

Id. at 5.

Much of the Objection appears copied-and-

pasted from Plaintiff’s earlier filings, rehashing arguments
already discussed and rejected above.

The primary difference is

Plaintiff’s further escalation of her attacks on Judge Buchanan:

17

How lucky for FedEx Ground to get a judge
like Judge Buchanan assigned to this matter.
A judge who would discriminate against and
bully Plaintiff: a non-attorney Pro Se
party. A judge that is willing to unlawfully
withhold inculpatory evidence from Plaintiff
so that she cannot prosecute her claim. A
judge willing to protect FedEx Ground from
losing a lawsuit it clearly cannot win.
Id. at 6.

Plaintiff’s Objection concludes with the claim that

Judge Buchanan’s rulings have been so unfair as to deprive
Plaintiff of her “fundamental right to redress her grievances in
a Court of law and . . . [her] due process right to a Fair and
Impartial Court.”

Id.

The Court disagrees.

Rather, the Court finds that

Judge Buchanan exhibited the patience of a saint in the face of
an intransigent litigant.

Judge Buchanan is to be commended for

her measured response to Plaintiff’s actions.
The Court is mindful that it is difficult to litigate
a case pro se.

It may sometimes be particularly challenging for

a pro se litigant to follow the rules of discovery.

Rather than

attempt to understand and abide by those rules, however,
Plaintiff dug in her heels and lashed out at both the Court and
opposing counsel.

In doing so, she derailed these proceedings.

It is now too late to set this case back on course.
What’s more, this state of affairs is not the result
of an innocent mistake, or even a series of such mistakes.
Rather, Plaintiff’s actions evince clear disregard for the
18

Court’s authority.

Plaintiff has purposely and repeatedly

refused to do what the Court ordered her to do.

Based on the

tenor of Plaintiff’s various filings, as well as her
communications with opposing counsel, Plaintiff appears to have
acted out of spite towards those she believed to have wronged
her.
“The Fourth Circuit has developed a four-part test for
a district court to use when determining what sanctions to
impose under Rule 37,” requiring that the court “determine (1)
whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith, (2) the
amount of prejudice that noncompliance caused the adversary, (3)
the need for deterrence of the particular sort of noncompliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would have
been effective.”

Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ. &

Employment of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 504 (4th Cir. 1998).
For the reasons discussed above, the Court easily
concludes that Plaintiff acted in bad faith.

As a result of

Plaintiff’s misconduct, Defendant was not able to take any
meaningful discovery.

Defendant was therefore highly prejudiced

in its ability to defend this case.

There is a great need to

deter such misconduct, as flagrant disregard of court orders
undermines the effectiveness of the court system.

That system

depends on litigants complying with court orders, whether or not

19

they think the orders fair.

See, e.g., Dancy, No. 3:08-CV-166-

RJC-DCK, 2009 WL 2424039, at *2.
Finally, for the reasons discussed above – and
particularly at this point in the case – the Court concurs with
Judge Buchanan and finds that no sanction short of dismissal
will suffice.

Cf. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club,

Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal
under Rule 37 where the plaintiff, in bad faith, delayed
interrogatory responses and ultimately provided inadequate
responses); Hastings v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 411 F.2d 1201, 1202
(3d Cir. 1969) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal under Rule 37
where the plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition or
answer interrogatories); Abebe v. Carter, No. 5:11-CV-2750-RMG,
2014 WL 12526347, at *2 (D.S.C. July 30, 2014), aff’d sub nom.
Abebe v. Green, 589 F. App’x 102 (4th Cir. 2014) (dismissing a
case with prejudice under Rule 37 where the plaintiff violated a
Court order by refusing to “meaningfully participate in [his]
deposition”); Jones v. Wal-Mart, No. 8:10-CV-988-JMC-JDA, 2011
WL 7445488, at *7 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2011), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 8:10-CV-00988-JMC, 2012 WL 684028
(D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2012), aff’d, 473 F. App’x 333 (4th Cir. 2012)
(dismissing a case with prejudice where the plaintiff refused to
comply with a court order compelling the production of
documents).
20

IV. Conclusion
For the above reasons, the Court will overrule
Plaintiff’s Objections to Judge Buchanan’s Orders [Dkts. 32, 54,
68, 75, 76], adopt Judge Buchanan’s Report and Recommendations
[Dkt. 74], and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice.
An appropriate order will issue.

February 14, 2017
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21