Opinion
Case No. 99-CV-76171-DT.
May 25, 2000.
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER CONCERNING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
This motion came on for telephonic hearing this date. The parties were notified that they were to be available for the hearing between 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff was not available when contacted at his residence, which was the only telephone number available to the Court.
On or about February 22, 2000, defense counsel forwarded to plaintiff a medical authorization with the request that he sign it. Plaintiff indicated that he would not sign the authorization. On or about February 28, 2000, defense counsel submitted interrogatories to the plaintiff. The interrogatory answers were due on April 3, 2000. Plaintiff did not answer the interrogatories. On or about April 11, 2000, defense counsel advised the plaintiff that if the answers were not submitted to the defense counsel and a signed medical authorization (a second copy of which was supplied) was not received by April 21, 2000, counsel would be required to file a motion to compel. The motion was filed on April 24, 2000. Pursuant to this Court's order, defense counsel attempted to meet and confer with the plaintiff to resolve the matter but was unable to contact him by telephone.
Based upon this record, it is apparent that the plaintiff is not abiding by the rules of this Court and cooperating in discovery. While plaintiff is acting pro Se, without the benefit of counsel, this does not entitle him to disregard the orderly procedures set out by the rules of this Court. This Court has a history of providing every reasonable accommodation to persons acting without counsel, but cases cannot be processed in a fair and efficient fashion without compliance with discovery obligations. In addition to failing to respond by signing the medical authorization or answering the interrogatories submitted by defense counsel, plaintiff also did not notify the Court as to any justifications for not being available for this telephonic hearing.
Accordingly, for reasons stated more fully on the record, defendants' motion to compel is GRANTED.
1. On or before June 8, 2000, plaintiff shall provide to defense counsel a signed medical authorization.
2. On or before June 8, 2000, plaintiff shall provide to defense counsel full and complete answers to the ten (10) interrogatories that have been submitted by defense counsel. These answers shall comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, and particularly 33(b), and the plaintiff can sign the interrogatories under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 by way of declaration if he wishes to respond to them without seeking the services of a notary public to witness his signing them under oath. Copies of both Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 are being provided to the plaintiff with this Order.
3. Plaintiff's medical authorization and response to the interrogatories are to be provided to defense counsel only and not submitted to this Court.
4. The issue of sanctions against the plaintiff under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4) is deferred until such time as plaintiff is given an opportunity to show that his noncompliance was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
NOTICE: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN SANCTIONS OF THE COURT SET OUT IN RULE 37(b)(2), WHICH SANCTIONS MAY INCLUDE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION UNDER RULE 37(b)(2)(C) (also attached).
So ORDERED.
Dated: May 25, 2000 Ann Arbor, Michigan