Opinion
Civil Action 2:13-cv-1020
07-02-2014
THOMAS BRADHAM, Plaintiff, v. FAIRFIELD COUNTY JOB & FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. No. 21; Defendants' Supplement to Their May 21, 2014 Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. No. 27; Defendants' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 28, Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena, Doc. No. 29; the Non-Party Motion to Quash, Doc. No. 34; and Defendants' Motion for In-Person Status Conference, Doc. No. 31. The Court will address each of these motions in turn.
I. Defendants' Motions to Compel
On May 21, 2014, defendants moved to compel discovery. The Court met with counsel for both parties on June 3, 2014 and ordered plaintiff to email responses to defendants' discovery requests by the close of business that day. Order, Doc. No. 25. The Court also commented that it expected greater responsiveness on the part of plaintiff's counsel in this matter. Id. Defendants represented that they would withdraw their should plaintiff comply with the Court's directives.
On June 4, 2014, defendants supplemented their May 21, 2014 Motion to Compel. Defendants represented that plaintiff had emailed what was characterized by plaintiff as "supplemental" responses to defendants' interrogatories on June 3, 2014, but that no original responses had ever been provided; moreover, defendants complained, the "supplemental" responses were not properly verified and were otherwise deficient. Defendants also complained that plaintiff had made no response whatsoever to defendants' document requests nor had he provided an executed medical release, as had been requested by defendants.
Plaintiff has made no response to either Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, or Defendants' Supplement to Their May 21, 2014 Motion to Compel Discovery. Those motions are therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide complete, properly verified, responses to defendants' interrogatories and requests for production of documents, including three fully executed medical releases, no later than July 9, 2014.
II. Defendants' Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order
Defendants also ask for an extension of the date by which expert reports must be produced, in light of plaintiff's failure to provide discovery. That motion is also unopposed by plaintiff and is for that reason GRANTED.
It is ORDERED that the reports of primary experts be produced no later than July 31, 2014 and that the reports of rebuttal experts be produced no later than August 15, 2014. All other dates in the Preliminary Pretrial Order, Doc. No. 11, and in the Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 12, remain.
III. Motions to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena
On June 5, 2014, defendant moved to quash subpoenas served by plaintiff on the Fairfield County Prosecutor's Office and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, seeking production of documents in Youngstown, Ohio. Defendant argues that the subpoenas violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A) because they require compliance beyond the geographical limits of the Rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) (2)(A)(A subpoena may command "production of documents, . . . at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person . . . .").
Defendants also refer to plaintiff's purported service of other subpoenas not served on defense counsel. Because there is no evidence presently before the Court that such subpoenas have been issued, the Court does not address this matter.
In light of plaintiff's failure to respond to this motion, Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena is GRANTED.
In light of the foregoing, the Non-Party Motion to Quash, filed by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, is DENIED as moot.
IV. Motion for Status Conference
Defendants ask for a status conference to address "Plaintiffs' Counsel's repeated failure to appropriately communicate and prosecute this case." Defendants' Motion for In-Person Status Conference, PAGEID 126. The Court concludes that yet another conference is unnecessary at this juncture.
However, the Court has previously expressed its concern about the apparent failure on the part of plaintiff's counsel to properly attend to the demands and obligations of this litigation. Order, Doc. No. 25. Recent events have not alleviated that concern. Plaintiff's counsel and plaintiff himself are EXPRESSLY WARNED that any additional failure to strictly comply with the directives of this Court and to meet their discovery obligations will result in the imposition of sanctions, including the possible dismissal of the action.
__________
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge