Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00198/USCOURTS-alsd-1_06-cv-00198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Booker T. Collor
Plaintiff
Wilbert J. Conway
Defendant
Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOOKER T. COLLOR, :

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION 06-00198-BH-B 

 :

v. :

 :

WATKINS MOTOR LINES, INC., :

et al., :

 : 

Defendants. :

ORDER

This action is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to

Compel Discovery (Doc. 11), Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 22), and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Extension of Discovery (Doc. 17). The undersigned conducted a

discovery conference with counsel for the parties on January 29,

2007. Upon review of the parties’ motions, the responses, and the

representations of counsel during the discovery conference, the

undersigned finds that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery and

Motion to Strike Objections are due to be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Motion for an Extension of Discovery is due to be GRANTED in part.

Plaintiff Booker T. Collor filed the instant action in March

2006 alleging that while acting as an agent/employee of Watkins

Motors Lines, Inc., Defendant Wilbert J. Conway negligently

operated his vehicle in such a manner that it collided with

Plaintiff’s vehicle, and caused injury to Plaintiff. Defendants

Case 1:06-cv-00198-BH-B Document 25 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 4
1

In addition to the referenced motions, Defendants have also

filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19), which is pending before Senior

District Judge W.B. Hand. In their motion, Defendants seek the

dismissal of this action based upon Plaintiff’s failure to fulfill his

discovery obligations and failure to prosecute this action.

2

filed an Answer denying the substantive allegations of the

Complaint, and on June 21, 2006, served on counsel for Plaintiff a

set of Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents.

On November 27, 2006, Defendants filed the pending Motion to

Compel, wherein they asserted that despite repeated requests,

Plaintiff's counsel failed to respond to Defendant's discovery

requests, and as a result, had impeded discovery in this case.

Subsequent thereto, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

Objections, and asserted that while Plaintiff had finally provided

responses to Defendants’ discovery requests, Plaintiff objected to

providing information regarding his prior injuries, claims and

lawsuits, and any Hurricane Katrina related injuries, claims and

lawsuits. Defendants argued that Plaintiff has waived his right to

file any objections in the absence of a showing of good cause.

At the discovery conference, Plaintiff’s counsel did not

dispute Defendants’ factual allegations, but instead argued that

dismissal1 was too drastic a remedy because Plaintiff's counsel, as

opposed to Plaintiff, was responsible for the inaction in this

case. Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that the Court may compel disclosure and may enter sanctions

against individuals who fail to make disclosures or participate in

Case 1:06-cv-00198-BH-B Document 25 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 4
3

discovery. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that: 

If the motion [to compel] is granted or if the disclosure

or requested discovery is provided after the motion was

filed, the court shall, after affording an opportunity to

be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct

necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising

such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party

the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,

including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that

the motion was filed without the movant's first making a

good faith effort to obtain the disclosure or discovery

without court action, or that the opposing party's

nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially

justified, or that other circumstances make an award of

expenses unjust.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). In the case sub judice, the evidence

clearly establishes that Plaintiff and his counsel have failed to

fulfill their discovery obligations, and that sanctions are

appropriate. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendants’

discovery requests, and also failed to offer any reasonable

explanation for his tardy responses, or for his failure to timely

preserve any objections to the discovery responses. Accordingly,

Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion to Strike are GRANTED.

Plaintiff and his counsel are hereby DIRECTED to supplement

Plaintiff’s discovery responses by providing full and complete

responses to Defendants’ discovery requests, and by submitting all

responsive documents in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control

no later than February 12, 2007. Additionally, Plaintiff is

DIRECTED to submit to a deposition before any medical depositions

are conducted.

Case 1:06-cv-00198-BH-B Document 25 Filed 01/29/07 Page 3 of 4
2

Plaintiff’s counsel is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order

to his client.

4

With respect to sanctions, the undersigned notes that there is

nothing in the record to indicate that Plaintiff's conduct

contributed to the discovery problems in this case. As noted supra,

Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged at the hearing that he alone was

responsible for hampering discovery in this case; thus, he alone

shall be responsible for the sanction imposed in this case.

Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED to reimburse Defendants for their

reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred in filing the

discovery motions and participating in the discovery conference.2

Defendants are DIRECTED to submit a Statement of Expenses and

Attorney’s Fees by February 5, 2007.

Plaintiff’s and his counsel are cautioned that the failure to

adhere to the Court directives and to their discovery obligations

will result in the dismissal of this action.

Because Defendants’ efforts to conduct discovery in this action

have been impeded, the undersigned will enter an Amended Scheduling

Order so that discovery can be completed.

DONE this 29th day of January, 2007.

 /S/ Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00198-BH-B Document 25 Filed 01/29/07 Page 4 of 4