Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00763/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00763-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:623 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FRANK FISCHER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2:05-cv-763-MEF

) (WO)

SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF )

CENTRAL ALABAMA, INC., et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Defendant Sysco Food Services of Central

Alabama, Inc.’s (hereinafter “Sysco”) Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 20).

I. Procedural History

On December 13, 2005, the parties filed their Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting

(Doc. # 4). By the terms of the agreement, pre-discovery disclosures were to be exchanged

by January 27, 2006. On February 23, 2006, Sysco filed a Motion to Compel, stating that

none of the disclosures had been received as of that date (Doc. # 6). On February 24, 2006,

the Court entered an Order granting the motion to compel and directing Plaintiff Frank

Fischer to respond to Sysco’s written discovery and give initial disclosures by March 10,

2006 (Doc. # 7). On March 14, 2006, Sysco filed its first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 10)

requesting dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b) based on

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 24, 2006 Order. In a Memorandum

Opinion and Order dated May 1, 2006 (Doc. # 16), the Court denied the motion to dismiss,

Case 2:05-cv-00763-MEF-TFM Document 37 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 3
2

but granted Sysco reasonable expensesin preparing and filing the motion to compel and the

motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4)(A).

II. Discussion

The Second Motion to Dismiss presently at issue renews Sysco’s request for dismissal

pursuant to Rules 37(b) and 41(b) based on Plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with the

Court’s February 24, 2006 Order on the motion to compel. The motion alleges that, as of

May 4, 2006, Plaintiff had only submitted initial disclosures, but had not complied with

other discovery requests, including the scheduling of Plaintiff’s deposition. Therefore,

Sysco requests that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with

an order of the Court pursuant to Rule 41(b), or as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rule

37(b)(2)(C). In response, Plaintiff assertsthat Sysco has now been provided with responses

to interrogatories and requests for production and that Plaintiff had been undergoing

chemotherapy, but is now willing to sit for his deposition at an agreed-upon time. In its

reply, Sysco admits that it has now received responses to interrogatories and requests for

production, but maintains its position that dismissal is warranted. In the alternative, Sysco

requests that, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A), the Court award it reasonable expenses and

attorney’s fees incurred in preparing and filing the Second Motion to Dismiss.

Based on the parties’ representations, it appears that the discovery process is now

moving forward. Given that discovery does not end until April 12, 2007, the parties should

have more than enough time to complete any necessary discovery despite the previous

Case 2:05-cv-00763-MEF-TFM Document 37 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 3
3

delays. Thus, the Court finds that dismissal pursuant to Rule 37(b) or Rule 41(b) is

unwarranted. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has already been sufficiently

sanctioned for his initial failure to participate in discovery, and will not impose further

sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that Sysco’s Second Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. # 20) is DENIED.

DONE this the 28 day of August, 2006. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00763-MEF-TFM Document 37 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 3