Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loney v. Datamax Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division

February 4, 2015

HAROLD LONEY, Plaintiff,
v.
DATAMAX CORPORATION, Defendant.

ORDER & MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

KIMBERLY A. SWANK, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court for consideration of Defendant Datamax Corporation's application for attorney's fees and expenses related to its previously allowed motion to compel discovery, as well as Datamax's Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal. No response has been filed by the pro se plaintiff, Harold Loney, and the time for doing so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant is awarded attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $796.00, and it is recommended that this action be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action in Brunswick County District Court, asserting claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., as well as claims under North Carolina law.[1] The action was removed to this court on October 23, 2013.

On March 12, 2014, Datamax served Plaintiff with interrogatories and requests for production of documents [DE #41-1 at 2]. Plaintiff did not provide timely responses, and, on May 1, 2014, counsel for Datamax sent Plaintiff a letter concerning his overdue responses and requested that Plaintiff respond to the discovery requests no later than May 15, 2014 [DE #41-1 at 20]. Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery requests or to counsel's letter, which prompted Datamax to file a motion to compel discovery. Datamax also sought attorney's fees associated with the filing of its motion.

On October 30, 2014, the court allowed Datamax's motion to compel. The court directed Datamax's counsel to submit an affidavit setting out the fees and expenses incurred in bringing the motion to compel and gave Plaintiff time "to respond and to show cause why the court should not grant Datamax's request for expenses and attorney's fees." (Order Compelling Discovery [DE #50] at 3.) Plaintiff was warned that "failure to comply... may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute or otherwise comply with the rules or orders of this court" pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b). (Id. at 4.)

On November 5, 2014, Datamax submitted an affidavit from its counsel averring that Datamax incurred legal fees in the amount of $796.00 in connection with its motion to compel. (Aff. Caren Enloe [DE #52].) Plaintiff has not objected to the affidavit, nor has he demonstrated that his failure to respond to Datamax's discovery requests was substantially justified or that other circumstances exist that would make an award of expenses unjust.

DISCUSSION

When a motion to compel discovery is allowed, the court must award reasonable expenses to the moving party unless "the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action, " "the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified, " or "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A).

If a party "fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, " the court may also impose sanctions, including dismissal of the action in whole or in part. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A). The Fourth Circuit has developed a four-part test to use "when determining what sanctions to impose under [Rule 37(b)]." Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th Cir. 2001).

Specifically, "[t]he court must determine (1) whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith, (2) the amount of prejudice that noncompliance caused the adversary, (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of non-compliance, and (4) whether less drastic sanctions would [be] effective."

Id. (quoting Anderson v. Found. for Advancement, Educ. & Emp't of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500, 504 (4th Cir. 1998)) (first alteration in original); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure or any court order).

The court previously allowed Datamax's motion to compel and provided Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard with regard to the propriety of an award of attorney's fees. Plaintiff did not come forward to show that Datamax's request for attorney's fees should be denied. Accordingly, Datamax is entitled to its fees and expenses incurred in compelling discovery. Having considered the amount requested and finding it to be reasonable, the court awards Datamax $796.00 in attorney's fees and expenses pursuant to Rule 37(a).

The facts of this case also support imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2). Plaintiff has failed to comply with this court's order compelling him to respond to Datamax's discovery requests, which supports a finding of bad faith. See Green v. John Chatillon & Sons, 188 F.R.D. 422, 424 (M.D. N.C. 1998). Because Plaintiff has failed to provide discovery, Datamax has been prejudiced in preparing a defense and has had to endure additional expense and delay in the litigation of this matter. The need for deterrence is high in this case. This is not the first time Plaintiff has failed to provide discovery in litigation before this court. In Loney v. RMB of NC, Inc., No. 7:13-CV-228-H (E.D. N.C. ), Plaintiff likewise failed to provide discovery, and an order compelling discovery was entered. The case was ultimately dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's orders. Finally, a lesser sanction will not be effective. In this action and Loney v. RMB of NC, Inc., the court has repeatedly warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the court's orders may result in sanctions, including dismissal. Yet, Plaintiff has failed to bring himself in compliance with this court's orders or to demonstrate why he is not able to do so. It is, therefore, recommended that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Datamax's request for attorney's fees and expenses associated with the filing of its motion to compel is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay Datamax $796.00 in attorney's fees and expenses within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. It is further RECOMMENDED that Datamax's Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal [DE #53] be ALLOWED and that this action be DISMISSED in its entirety pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Clerk shall send copies of this Order and Memorandum and Recommendation to counsel for the respective parties, who shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file written objections. Failure to file timely, written objections shall bar an aggrieved party from obtaining de novo review by the District Judge on an issue covered in the Memorandum and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions not objected to, and accepted by, the District Judge.

NOTICE

Attached to this notice is a memorandum and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge in this action that has been entered on the records of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3), and Local Civil Rule 72.4(b), EDNC. Rule 72(b) provides as follows:

(2) Objections. Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. Unless the district judge orders otherwise, the objecting party must promptly arrange for transcribing the record, or whatever portions of it the parties agree to or the magistrate judge considers sufficient.
(3) Resolving Objections . The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

You are hereby notified that unless written objections are timely filed in accordance with this rule, you will have waived the right to further consideration of these issues by the district judge, and an appropriate order based on the memorandum and recommendation will be entered. Furthermore, failure to file timely objections to the findings and recommendation set forth by the magistrate judge may result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of this court based on such findings and recommendations. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.