United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MICHAEL T. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Compel and for Sanctions , Motion for Extensions ,
and Motion to Take Deposition Out of Time .
to Compel and for Sanctions 
August 17, 2018, Defendant served interrogatories and
requests for production of documents on Plaintiff.
See Notices  . On September 24, 2018,
Plaintiff provided interrogatory responses, but Plaintiff did
not provide responses to the requests for production of
documents. On October 9, 2018, the Court conducted a
conference with the parties regarding disputed discovery
disclosures, requests, and responses, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(3)(v) and the Case Management
Order , ¶ 7. The next day, the Court entered an
Order directing Plaintiff to serve supplemental discovery
responses by October 17, 2018. See October 10, 2018,
Text Only Order.
October 24, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel ,
asserting that Plaintiff failed to supplement his initial
disclosures, provided insufficient supplemental responses to
certain interrogatories, and failed to provide any responses
to the requests for production of documents. After Plaintiff
failed to respond to the Motion to Compel , the Court
granted the Motion  and directed Plaintiff to (1)
supplement his initial disclosures by providing a specific
computation of his alleged damages; (2) supplement his
responses to Interrogatories 4, 8, and 12 by providing full
and complete responses; and (3) respond to Plaintiff's
requests for production of documents without objection.
See Order .
Court also directed Plaintiff to file a response by November
21, 2018, setting forth the reasons or circumstances, if any,
which would make his actions in discovery substantially
justified or which would otherwise make an award of fees and
expenses unjust. Id. Plaintiff did not file a
response as ordered by the Court.
December 18, 2018, Defendant filed the instant Motion to
Compel , asserting that Plaintiff failed to respond to
the requests for production. Defendant requests that the
Court compel Plaintiff to respond to the requests for
production and impose sanctions, up to and including
Court has broad discretion to exercise its various
sanctioning powers. Topalian v. Ehrman, 3 F.3d 931,
934 (5th Cir. 1993); Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987
F.2d 311, 323 (5th Cir. 1993) (“The imposition of
sanctions is a matter of discretion for the district
court.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) allows
for sanctions when a party fails to obey a discovery order.
The sanction may include directing that facts be taken as
established, prohibiting the party from supporting or
opposing claims or defenses, striking pleadings, staying the
proceedings until the order is obeyed, dismissing the action,
rendering default judgment, or finding the party in contempt
of court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A). In lieu of, or in
addition to the aforementioned sanctions, “the court
must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising the
party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the
failure was substantially justified or other circumstances
make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
speaking, courts should punish parties no more harshly than
is necessary to vindicate the injury inflicted by the
particular misbehavior at issue. Carroll v. Jaques
Admiralty Law Firm, P.C., 110 F.3d 290, 294 (5th Cir.
1997). “Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently
both to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant
such a sanction, and to deter those who might be tempted to
such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.”
Roadway Express, Inc v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 763-64
failed to comply with the Court's Order , directing
him to file a pleading explaining why his action in discovery
were justified. Plaintiff also failed to respond to
Defendant's requests for production of documents as
ordered by the Court.
however, filed a Response  to the latest Motion to Compel
, stating that “as for [the] production of
documents, Plaintiff does not have any.” Thus, it
appears that Plaintiff has now responded to the requests for
production of documents. Plaintiff provided this response
only after Defendant was forced to expend unnecessary effort
and incur unnecessary expense.
Response , Plaintiff admits that he cannot present any
good cause for his actions. Accordingly, the Court finds no
substantial justification for Plaintiff's failure to obey
the Court's Order  or timely respond to
Defendant's discovery requests. Defendant requests that
the Court dismiss Plaintiff's case, but the Court finds
that such a sanction would be excessively harsh given the
circumstances. Instead, the Court finds that a lesser
sanction should be imposed.
that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be
sanctioned $100.00 for failing to comply with the Court's
Order and failing to cooperate in discovery. The Court will
not impose additional sanctions at this time. However, if
Plaintiff continues to ignore the orders of this Court or
fails to cooperate in discovery, the Court will revisit the
issue of additional sanctions.
for Extensions  and Motion to Take ...