Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00658/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00658-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DONALD BELL and KATRINA BELL, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05CV658-MHT

) [WO]

TRAVELERS PROPERTY, CASUALTY )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

The defendant, STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY [“Standard Fire”]

filed a Motion to Compel on 27 January 2006 (Doc. # 14). The factual underpinnings which

triggered the motion provide a classic illustration of a party’s serial failures to abide by the

discovery rules clearly codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court has

examined the pertinent pleadings, exhibits, and orders in the record and FINDS that the

plaintiffs have violated the following provisions:

1. Failure to file timely responses, i.e., responses within 30 days of their receipt

of discovery requests, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(a) and 34(b); the

requests were propounded in October 2005 and were finally served more than

three months later in January 2006;

2. Failure to file timely objections, i.e., objections within 30 days of their receipt

of discovery requests, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro 33 (b) (4);

3. Failure to sign responses, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 (g)(2) and 33 (b)

Case 2:05-cv-00658-MHT-VPM Document 15 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 3
2

(1);

4. Inexplicably false representation regarding directive in the court’s scheduling

order; the plaintiffs lodges several untimely objections to providing responses

to interrogatories because they were allegedly exceeded “the number set forth

within this Court’s Scheduling Order”, when, in fact, the scheduling order

imposed no limitations (See Exhibit F to the Motion to Compel; compare with

Doc. # 8); and

5. Failure to cooperate with opposing counsel to provide responses within a

reasonable time to facilitate the making of dispositive motions and to advance

the litigation.

The court is both quite disappointed and quite displeased with the plaintiffs’ and their

counsel’s failure to comply with well-established discovery rules, and the court is persuaded

that their conduct has been undertaken in bad faith. Each party is expected to resolve

discovery disputes in good faith, without undue delay or machination, and failure to do so

is regarded as bad faith by this court, triggering the assessment of sanctions against the

offending party. See BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045 (11 Cir. th

1994); Pesaplastic, C.A. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co., 799 F.2d 1510 (11 Cir. 1986). th

In view of all of these factors, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion To Compel is GRANTED.

2. On or before 3 February 2006, the plaintiffs are DIRECTED to serve complete

responses to the defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production. The

Case 2:05-cv-00658-MHT-VPM Document 15 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 3
3

plaintiffs shall not interpose any objections to the requests. The responses

shall be complete and shall address, point for point, all of the requests made.

The plaintiffs are specifically forbidden to refer the defendant in their

responses to any other document or pleading, such as the complaint.

3. On or before 6 February 2006, the defendant shall file with the Clerk of the

court a Notice of Compliance, setting forth the plaintiffs’ compliance with this

order.

4. On or before 6 February 2006, the defendant is DIRECTED to file with the

Clerk of the court an itemized accounting of time spent by defendants’ counsel

in securing responses to their discovery requests, including attorney fees and

expenses attributable to their efforts.

5. On or before 6 February 2006, the plaintiffs shall show cause why the court

should not impose monetary sanctions upon them for failing to abide by the

discovery rules.

6. The plaintiffs are CAUTIONED that their failure to comply with this order

will lead to the imposition of specific sanctions upon them, which may include

a recommendation to the presiding judge to prohibit their use of any evidence

or information unreasonably withheld.

DONE this 30 day of January, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00658-MHT-VPM Document 15 Filed 01/30/06 Page 3 of 3