Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00639/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00639-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

He had not sought an extension of time prior to filing his response.

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

ROBERT L. TILMON PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:05CV00639GH

KURT KNICKREHM, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the motion of defendant Arkansas Department of

Human Services, Division of Children and Family Services (“DHS”) to dismiss the

amended complaint for failure of plaintiff to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. DHS states that plaintiff has failed to provide discovery responses and initial

disclosures as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not

responded to the motion. 

There is no question that plaintiff is in violation of the Rules 26 and 33 by failing to

provide the information within the time required. A review of the record shows some foot

dragging by plaintiff. Plaintiff originally filed this action pro se. On August 8, 2005,

counsel entered his appearance on behalf of plaintiff and filed an amended complaint.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on August 19, 2005, to

which plaintiff did not respond until September 26, 2005. 1

 The Court ordered plaintiff on

November 1, 2005, to serve the complaint on the new defendants added in the amended

complaint by November 11, 2005, or an order of dismissal without prejudice would be

entered. Plaintiff served the defendants before the November 11, 2005 deadline.

Defendants filed another motion to dismiss on November 18, 2005, to which plaintiff never

Case 4:05-cv-00639-GH Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
2

DHS’ motion for continuance was not based on plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery but 

on defense counsel’s inability to conduct discovery and prepare for trial while she is on Family

Medical Leave from January 13, 2006 to April 7, 2006.

-2-

responded. The Court entered its order with regard to the motions to dismiss on

December 12, 2005. 

Now DHS has filed another motion to dismiss, to which plaintiff has not responded.

 On this record, the Court might be inclined to grant DHS’ motion. Nevertheless, “[e]ven

where the facts might support dismissal with prejudice, this ultimate sanction ... should

only be used when lesser sanctions prove futile. A district court should weigh its need to

advance its burdened docket against the consequence of irrevocably extinguishing the

litigant's claim and consider whether a less severe sanction could remedy the effect of the

litigant's transgressions on the court and the resulting prejudice to the opposing party.”

Hunt v. City of Minneapolis, Minn. 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). Here, while plaintiff has disregarded the requirements of Rule

26 and Rule 33, he has not engaged in a persistent pattern of wilfully disregarding the

Court’s orders. Furthermore, his actions have not unduly prejudiced DHS, Pursuant to

DHS’ request, the Court has continued the trial, as well as all other deadlines, and will

issue a new scheduling order.2

Thus, the Court will not dismiss this action, but admonishes plaintiff that further

failure to comply with the Federal Rules as well as orders of the Court will result in the

imposition of sanctions. Furthermore, plaintiff is directed to provide the information

requested by DHS within 20 days of the entry of this Order.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

 ___________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00639-GH Document 45 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2