In Smith v. Fischer, 13-cv-6127 (September 30, 2019), the defendant moved for Rule 37 sanctions – specifically dismissal when the plaintiff did not comply with discovery requests.

The result – motion denied because the court had not given the plaintiff a warning.

Under Rule 37(b), a court may dismiss a case or impose other sanctions if a party does not obey an order to provide or permit discovery. Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2002). In evaluating whether to dismiss a case for this reason, a court considers: “1) the willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for noncompliance; 2) the duration of the period of non-compliance; 3) whether the non-compliant party had been warned of the consequences of noncompliance; and 4) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.” Ferrer v. Fischer, No. 9:13-CV-0031 NAM/ATB, 2014 WL 5859139, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2014) (citation omitted). Dismissal is a “harsh remedy” to be used “only in extreme situations.” Id. (citation omitted).

The Court declines to analyze each factor here because it finds that the third factor precludes dismissal; that is, Plaintiff has not been warned that his non-compliance with Defendants’ discovery demands could result in the dismissal of his case. The Second Circuit has repeatedly affirmed that courts may not dismiss a pro selitigant’s case under Rule 37 without warning him of the consequences of not complying with discovery obligations. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Setteducate, 419 F. App’x 23, 24 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[e]ven the most severe Rule 37 sanctions may be imposed even against a plaintiff who is proceeding pro se, so long as a warning has been given that noncompliance can result in a sanction”) (quotation marks omitted and emphasis added) (summary order); Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp.,555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009) (same).

Consistent with this settled authority, courts routinely deny motions to dismiss based on a pro se litigant’s non-compliance with discovery orders where the litigant had not been warned in advance that his non-compliance could result in dismissal. See, e.g., Velazquez v. Vermont Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:07 CV 244, 2009 WL 819445, *2 (D. Vt. 2009) (declining to order dismissal where pro se plaintiff did not appear for a deposition or respond to written discovery requests but “ha[d] not yet been warned that his failure to participate in discovery might result in the dismissal of his case”); Burke v. Miron, No. 3:07CV1181(RNC), 2009 WL 952097, *1 (D. Conn. 2009) (declining to dismiss the pro se plaintiff’s case for non-compliance with discovery, even though he was “a prolific and experienced litigator” because “Second Circuit precedent require[es] a clear warning to pro selitigants” that their case may be dismissed). Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case.

Comment: A warning is required before you can move for dismissal.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

The case of King v. Harwood, 15-cv-762 WD Kentucky September 30, 2019 presents an interesting question – can a defendant obtain dismissal of a case where the plaintiff refuses to answer questions in her deposition? Here the court answered this question with a “No.”

King brought a civil rights case against Harwood after she was exonerated of a murder. During her deposition, King refused (on Fifth Amendment grounds) to answer certain questions concerning bullet holes in her floor. The Defendant moved under Rule 37 for the dismissal of the case because King did not answer those questions.

The Magistrate and the District Judge rejected the Rule 37 motion because Harwood never moved to compel. Because he did not move to compel, there was no court order requiring King to answer the questions. Because she did not violate a court order, the Rule 37 sanction of dismissal was not available.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) provides that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 25, or 37(a), the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). Such “just orders” may include “dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part.” Id. at 37(b)(2)(A)(v). However, the Sixth Circuit has stated that “[b]y its terms, Rule 37(b) requires a party seeking a sanction of default against a party to secure a court order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Burley v. Gagacki, 729 F.3d 610, 618 (6th Cir. 2013). In Burley, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for a sanction of default under Rule 37, because the moving party had never moved to compel discovery even though “it was apparent that [the opposing party] did not fully respond to the interrogatories.” Id. at 618. That being the case, there was no violation of a court order to justify any sanction under Rule 37. Id.Further, the Sixth Circuit has made clear that dismissal is the sanction of last resort. See id.; Beil v. Lakewood Eng’g and Mfg. Co., 15. F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 1994).

The court also determined that the bullet holes found in the floor of King’s home were not relevant to the lawsuit. The bullet holes were not fired by the same gun used in the murder and were found years after the murder had occurred.

Comment: if you wish to obtain Rule 37 sanctions, you should move to compel and obtain an order compelling discovery. Once that order is violated, you can move for Rule 37 sanctions.

If you have any questions about Rule 37 or federal procedure, do not hesitate to contact me.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.

http://www.clintonlaw.net