Summary
ordering that plaintiff "pay to defendant . . . the reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees for plaintiff's failure to attend his deposition and the necessity of obtaining this order, including, but not limited to, all such expenses and fees incurred in relation to the deposition, and to the drafting and filing of defendant's Motion for Sanctions"
Summary of this case from Lloyd v. McNeishOpinion
NO. 5:06-CV-338-D.
January 11, 2008
ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions [D.E. 38]. Plaintiff failed to respond.
Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to participate in prosecuting this case. Specifically, plaintiff failed to cooperate in scheduling plaintiff's deposition and failed to appear for plaintiff's deposition on November 15, 2007, after having been properly served with a notice of deposition. See Def.'s Mot. for Sanctions; Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Sanctions 2-3.
The court finds that plaintiff has failed to offer any justification for these repeated discovery abuses. The discovery abuses prejudiced defendant and were done in bad faith. Good cause exists for granting the defendant's Motion for Sanctions.See, e.g., Mut. Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Richards Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, defendant's Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay to defendant, in care of counsel for defendant, Norward P. Blanchard, the reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees for plaintiff's failure to attend his deposition and the necessity of obtaining this order, including, but not limited to, all such expenses and fees incurred in relation to the deposition, and to the drafting and filing of defendant's Motion for Sanctions. The court determines the amount to be $500. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. Plaintiff shall pay the $500 not later than January 25, 2008. Moreover, plaintiff is WARNED that the failure to pay this sanction in accordance with this order could result in further sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action. See, e.g., Anderson v. Found. for Advancement. Educ., Employment of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 504-05 (4th Cir. 1998); Hathcock v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995).
SO ORDERED.