Free Order on Motion for Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. ..mmallllmt“.........—.—..».wmh.._*..“....—mh_.........—”....“...“—”...“....—m.r_...
Case 3:02-cv-02132-AWT Document 27 Filed O2/11/2004 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Tfgn Eviij
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ` ’ `
KY-2*1 { 5 ;;i> I-J; {MJ
ROY SASTROM AND ROBERT KALMAN, :
Pl aimt
v. i CASE NO. 3:O2CV2l32(AWT)
JAMES CASSIDY, ET AL., Q
Defendants. E W
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER j
The plaintiffs, appearing prg se, seek a declaratory judgment
that certain policies of Whiting Forensic Division of Connecticut
Valley Hospital ("Whiting") violate their civil rights. On August
I3, 2003, the defendants, Whiting officials, served their "First
Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents" on ,
e
the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' responses to the defendants'
discovery requests were due within 30 days after service of the R
requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)(party upon whom §
interrogatories have been served shall serve answers within 30 days I
after the service of the interrogatories): Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(h)(party upon whom the request for production of documents is I
served shall serve a written response within 30 days after the g
service of the request). The plaintiffs have rum; served any E
responses. Pending before the court is the defendants' "motion for E
order." (Doc. #22.) The defendants request that the court enter i
an order "striking the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety,
dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety or rendering 1
E

§§;§§§§§;§;ea .s.r 1i;;:;:iiv*v¥%¥?li?FN“iE$;¥;%?¥€§F3§?EEiéE§§§i?§Ei%EEi?E§?;$€?2i§§??éii?i?g?zk;;iI;;


Case 3:02-cv-02132-AWT Document 27 Filed O2/11/2004 Page 2 of 3 )
a judgment by default against plaintiffs" for their failure to
serve responses to the defendants' discovery requests. In the
alternative, the defendants request that the court order the
plaintiffs to comply with the discovery requests. The motion is
DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
If a party fails to provide discovery, Rule 37 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of such orders "as *
are just," including any of several sanctions enumerated in Rule ]
37(b). Among these sanctions are the entry of dismissal or )
default, the striking of the pleadings of the offending party and E
the award of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees. A E
district court has broad power to impose sanctions for failure to l
comply with discovery requests. Friends of Animals, Inc. v. U.S. g
Surgical Corp., 131 F.3d 332, 334 (2d Cir. 1997). when a
litigation—ending sanction is sought, the court considers the
following factors: (1) the willfulness of the non—comp1iant party
or the reason for the noncompliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser
sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of noncompliance, and
(4) whether the non—compliant party had been warned of the
consequences of his non—compliance. Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak
Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 852-54 (2d Cir. 1995). Dismissal is a
harsh remedy to be used only in extreme situations, and then only [
when a court finds willfulness, bad faith, or any fault on the part
of the party. Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 916 F.2d 759,
2

Case 3:02-cv-02132-AWT Document 27 Filed O2/11/2004 Page3of3 l
764 (2d Cir. 1990). The court must first warn a pro se litigant of
the consequences of noncompliance. Valentine v. Museum of Modern
3;;, 29 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 1994).
On the present record, the defendants' request for a
litigation—ending sanction is premature. Accordingly, their i
request for an order striking of the complaint, dismissing the \
action or entering a default judgment is denied. However, the é
defendants' request for an order ordering the plaintiffs to serve
responses to the discovery requests is granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall serve responses
to the defendants' first set of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents dated August 13, 2003 within 25 days of E
receipt of this order.1 L
The plaintiffs are on notice that failure to comply with the R
court's order may subject the plaintiffs to sanctions, including N
the dismissal of this action with prejudice. %
SO ORDERED this Qugay of @a,»1,;.,».T\»;pfw`h 4M Hartford, I
Connecticut. I [ s\, _
f 1
United States Magistrate Judge 1
1
1
M-—-MT 1
*Fai1ure to respond or object to a discovery request in a i
timely manner waives any objection which may have been available.
Smith v. Conway Organization,_;ggL, 154 F.R.D. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1994);
Scott v. Arex, Inc., 124 F.R,D. 39, 41 (D.Conn. 1989).
1
1