Opinion
NO. 4:03-CV-0636-A
February 11, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Rent-Way, TTIG, L.P., to dismiss the claims and causes of action of pro se plaintiff, Anthony Wilson, for his failure to comply with orders of this court and failure to properly respond to discovery requests. The court, after reviewing the motion, the response of plaintiff, defendant's reply, the record, and applicable authorities, concludes that defendant's motion should be granted and the claims and causes of action of plaintiff should be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth below.
As a ground for its motion defendant relies on plaintiff's failure to respond to its request for admissions. The court is not basing its imposition of sanctions on such a failure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 does not contemplate that a sanction is available for a failure to respond to a request for admissions. The result of a party failing to timely object to or deny the matter requested to be admitted is that the matter is deemed admitted. See id. at 36(a). In passing, the court notes that defendant's request for admissions are drafted such that an admission, deemed or otherwise, would be meaningless.
Plaintiff instituted this suit on June 27, 2003, alleging that defendant unlawfully discriminated against him by refusing to hire him for a management position. On January 20, 2004, the court reminded plaintiff of his duty to cooperate in the discovery process, granted defendant's motions to compel responses to its interrogatories and request for production, and ordered:
that by 4:30 p.m. on January 28, 2004, plaintiff provide full, complete, and signed responses to defendant's interrogatories numbers 3 and 6 through 19, and that, at 2:00 p.m. on January 28, 2004, plaintiff produce for inspection and copying at the office of defendant's attorney, at 3838 Oaklawn Avenue, Suite 1700, Dallas, Texas, all documents called for by defendant's requests for production and a written response, without objections, to said requests as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b).
Ct.'s Order of Jan. 20, 2004. Plaintiff failed to comply with the above-quoted order. Although defendant acknowledges that it received plaintiff's responses to its interrogatories, the responses were received on February 2, 2004, and several were incomplete and/or did not answer the question asked. Also, plaintiff has not provided defendant with either a written response to its request for production or documents in response to such request.
Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the above-quoted order and failed to respond to proper discovery requests in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court finds that the sanction of dismissal with prejudice should be imposed on plaintiff, and that no lesser sanction would appropriately address plaintiff's failures.See FED. R. Civ. P. 16(f), 37(b)(2)(C), 37(d), 41(b). Accordingly,
The court ORDERS that defendant's motion to dismiss be, and is hereby, granted, and that all claims and causes of action of plaintiff against defendant in the above-styled and numbered action be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice.