The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court are defendants' Motions for Sanctions. (Docs. 71 and 78).
On May 12, 2006, the Court granted defendants' motion to compel, and ordered plaintiff to serve his initial disclosures and to respond to defendants' discovery requests by May 19, 2006. See, Doc. 69. When plaintiff did not do so, defendants Eytalis and Clarry moved for sanctions, Doc. 71. The Court then ordered plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.
After asking for and receiving an extension of time, plaintiff filed a response in which he pointed out for the first time that the discovery requests that were served upon him were from a different case to which he is not a party. Defendants have filed a second motion for sanctions, Doc. 78, in which they admit that the wrong interrogatories were sent to plaintiff, but they again assert that he has failed to serve initial disclosures.
Plaintiff's response to the show cause order ignores the fact that he has failed to serve initial disclosures. His original failure to do so could perhaps be excused by his pro se status. However, there is no apparent justification for his failure to serve initial disclosures after being ordered to do so.
Defendants state that they have now served the correct discovery requests on plaintiff. The Court notes that the deadline for completion of discovery was April 6, 2006. The Court will permit defendants to serve their discovery requests after the discovery deadline, but the parties should understand that this case is set for trial on August 21, 2006. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the trial date will not be changed. Plaintiff must respond to the discovery requests as ordered herein, or additional sanctions will be imposed. Those additional sanctions may include dismissal of this case.
Upon consideration and for good cause shown, defendants' Motions for Sanctions. (Docs. 71 and 78) are GRANTED in part as follows:
Plaintiff is sanctioned pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4) for his failure to serve initial disclosures. Plaintiff shall pay the sum of $100.00 to defendants, and shall serve his initial disclosures by June 23, 2006.
Leave is granted nunc pro tunc for defendants to serve written discovery as stated in their Motion for Sanctions, Doc. 78.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3), plaintiff is ordered to serve his responses to defendants's discovery requests, which were mailed to him on June 9, 2006, by June 30, 2006.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...