Opinion
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:09-CV-81-RLV-DCK.
November 20, 2009
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the "Defendant's Motion to Compel Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures and to Extend Mediation Deadline" (Document No. 7) filed on October 29, 2009 by Richard Lever ("Defendant"). The motion has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having fully considered the record, the undersigned will grant in part and deny in part for the following reasons:
Pursuant to the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (Document No. 6), initial disclosures were due by September 30, 2009. Defendant has repeatedly attempted in good faith to obtain Plaintiff's compliance with Rule 26(a)(1) to no avail. (Document No. 7, Ex. C, D). As the discovery deadline in this case is December 15, 2009, Defendant asks the Court to order Plaintiff to provide the required initial disclosures. Civil Rule 37(a)(1) provides in relevant part that "a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). The pro se Plaintiff has not filed a response. However, the record reflects that Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice and that Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Defendant also asks for an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses associated with filing this motion. If a motion to compel is granted, Rule 37 provides in relevant part that "the court must . . . require the party . . . whose conduct necessitates the motion . . . to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5). The Court may decline to order attorneys fees if "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).
Pro se litigants are entitled to some deference from courts. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972); Bauer v. Commissioner, 97 F.3d 45, 49 (4th Cir. 1996) (courts will liberally treat errors made by pro se litigants, especially when procedural rules are involved). "But they as well as other litigants are subject to the time requirements and respect for court orders without which effective judicial administration would be impossible." Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989), cert denied, 493 U.S. 1084 (1990); and see, Traquth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2nd Cir. 1983) ( pro se status does not "exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law").
On October 29, 2009, Plaintiff indicated that she has "a serious family illness" and wishes to voluntarily dismiss her case. (Document No. 8). Given the liberal treatment afforded pro se parties, and under these circumstances, the undersigned will not impose attorneys fees at this time. However, the Plaintiff is cautioned that she must provide the initial disclosures and otherwise comply with the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan until such time as this case may be dismissed, with or without prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the "Defendant's Motion to Compel Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures and to Extend Mediation Deadline" (Document No. 7) is GRANTED in that Plaintiff shall file her initial disclosures by November 27, 2009; failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including imposition of attorneys fees; the mediation deadline is extended to January 7, 2010; the motion is DENIED to the extent it requests attorneys fees at this time.