Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kuntz v. Camelot Care Centers, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division

December 1, 2017

CARLA J. KUNTZ, Plaintiff,
v.
CAMELOT CARE CENTERS, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 15). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court DENY IN PART Defendant Camelot Care Centers, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint but sanction Plaintiff Carla Kuntz and her counsel for failure to comply with the Scheduling Order and failure to comply with the discovery process in this case. On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Objection to the Report and Recommendation. On November 24, 2017, Defendant filed a response.

         Upon careful review of the record and the pleadings, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation with minor adjustments to the timing for producing documents and scheduling Plaintiff's deposition and ordering Plaintiff's attorney to pay Defendant's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, as a sanction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C).

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), this Court determines “de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Although this Court does not need to conduct a new hearing on the entire matter, the Court must give “fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.” 12 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2 (2d ed. 1997); Wasserman v. Purdue Univ. ex rel. Jischke, 431 F.Supp.2d 911, 914 (N.D. Ind. 2006).

         If no objection is made, or if only a partial objection is made, the Court reviews the unobjected to portions for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). This Court may “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         II. BACKGROUND

         The Magistrate Judge accurately set forth the background of this case, and neither party objects to the Magistrate Judge's factual findings. In sum, Plaintiff failed to serve her initial disclosures in violation of the Court's Scheduling Order, failed to respond to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories, and failed to cooperate with scheduling Plaintiff's deposition. Defendant filed a Motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a).

         On October 26, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny the Motion in part but sanction Plaintiff and her attorney for failure to comply with the Scheduling Order and failure to cooperate in the discovery process. The Magistrate Judge noted that dismissal was a drastic sanction and that the circumstances did not warrant such a drastic sanction. Instead, the Magistrate Judge recommended the following sanctions: that this Court (1) find that Plaintiff has waived all objections to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories; (2) order Plaintiff to produce, by November 15, 2017, her initial disclosures and complete responses to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories; (3) order Defendant to, by November 15, 2017, provide to the Court and Plaintiff three dates between November 21, 2017 and December 15, 2017 for the taking of Plaintiff's deposition; order Plaintiff to select one of those three dates and to notify the Court and Defendant's counsel of her selection by November 17, 2017; and order Plaintiff's deposition to take place in this District on that date; (4) order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1)(A), that Plaintiff and her counsel to pay Defendant's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, for the filing of the Motion to Dismiss.

         On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed her objections to the Report and Recommendation.

         III. ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff does not object to the recommendation that she be ordered to provide her discovery responses and initial disclosures by November 15, 2017. Plaintiff does object, however to (1) the mechanism the Magistrate Judge recommended for setting Plaintiff's deposition and (2) the recommendation that attorney's fees should be assessed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1)(A).

         A. The Court Will Modify the Deposition Schedule as Requested by Defendant

         Plaintiff first asserts that the time parameters recommended by the Magistrate Judge are too aggressive. Plaintiff requests that the Court give the parties a short window of time to see whether they can agree to a date, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.