1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SUNIL NAYYAR, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. Case No. 2:12-CV-189 

 JUDGE MARBLEY 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING 

MT. CARMEL HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the 

plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 50. For the reasons that 

follow, the motion is denied. 

 Plaintiff, Dr. Sunil Nayyar [“plaintiff”], commenced this action 

following the termination of his medical residency with defendant Mt. 

Carmel Health System [“MCHS”].1

 Plaintiff’s claims of employment 

discrimination failed to survive summary judgment. See Opinion and 

Order, Doc. No. 74. There remains, however, one outstanding motion in 

connection with discovery in this case. Motion for Sanctions. The 

Court now considers the merits of that motion. 

 Plaintiff seeks his costs and fees incurred in connection with 

MCHS’s alleged failure to fully respond to plaintiff’s First Set of 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Motion for 

Sanctions, pp. 3-4. Plaintiff first served these discovery requests 

                                                            

1 In addition to MCHS, two of plaintiff’s former supervisors were also named as 

defendants to the action.

Case: 2:12-cv-00189-ALM-NMK Doc #: 79 Filed: 10/01/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

on August 18, 2012. MCHS’s responses apparently consisted entirely of 

objections. See Exhibit 4 attached to Motion for Sanctions. Counsel 

for the parties conferred on the matter, but plaintiff eventually 

filed a motion to compel substantive responses to the discovery 

requests. Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 31. That motion was granted as 

unopposed and MCHS was ordered to provide substantive response to 

plaintiff’s discovery requests. Order, Doc. No. 35. After a number 

of requests for additional time, MCHS made substantive response to 

plaintiff’s discovery requests on March 27, 2013. See Exhibit 12, 

attached to Motion for Sanctions. The Motion for Sanctions - which 

was filed on April 24, 2013 and after the motion for summary judgment 

and plaintiff’s response to that motion had been filed - characterizes 

those responses as deficient and inadequate. However, plaintiff 

offers no evidence that his dissatisfaction with those responses was 

ever communicated to MCHS prior to the filing of the Motion for 

Sanctions. 

 Plaintiff seeks an award of costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to 

Rules 37(a)(5)(A), 37(b)(2)(C) and 37(d)(3) in connection with MCHS’s 

initial failure to provide substantive response to his discovery 

request and MCHS’s later, allegedly insufficient, substantive 

responses. Motion for Sanctions, p. 8.2

 

 MCHS contends that sanctions are not warranted because 

plaintiff’s discovery motions were filed prematurely and because there 

has been no violation of a court order. MCHS also complains that 

                                                            

2 Plaintiff also seeks default judgment, under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi), for the 

alleged failure to provide substantive discovery responses. In light of the 

grant of summary judgment to defendants, the request for default judgment is 

now moot. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00189-ALM-NMK Doc #: 79 Filed: 10/01/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

plaintiff failed to exhaust all extrajudicial means of resolving any 

discovery dispute, as is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and 

37(d)(1)(B). MCHS specifically complains that plaintiff failed to even 

articulate his dissatisfaction with its substantive discovery 

responses prior to filing the Motion for Sanctions. Memorandum 

contra, Doc. No. 54. 

 Rule 37 authorizes a motion to compel discovery when a party 

fails to provide proper response to an interrogatory under Rule 33 or 

to a request for production of documents under Rule 34. Moreover, “an 

evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated 

as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(4). However, the party moving to compel discovery must certify 

that it has “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the 

person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort 

to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 

 As noted supra, plaintiff has not certified that he fully 

exhausted all extra-judicial means of resolving any dispute arising 

out of MCHS’s March 27, 2013 substantive responses to plaintiff’s 

discovery requests. As it relates to those responses, then, the Motion 

for Sanctions is without merit. 

Plaintiff also seeks an award of sanctions in connection with the 

grant of his earlier Motion to Compel. An award of a movant’s 

reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, is ordinarily 

justified if a motion to compel discovery is granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(5)(A). However, an award of expenses is not appropriate if, 

inter alia, the opposing party’s nondisclosure was substantially 

Case: 2:12-cv-00189-ALM-NMK Doc #: 79 Filed: 10/01/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

justified or if other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 

Id. The Court is vested with wide discretion in determining an 

appropriate sanction under Rule 37. Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. 

Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 (1976); Reg’l Refuse Sys. v. Inland 

Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 154 (6th Cir. 1988). 

The record establishes that counsel engaged in numerous 

discussions regarding plaintiff’s discovery requests. The Motion to 

Compel simply asked that MCHS be required to provide substantive 

responses to the outstanding discovery requests rather than rely on 

its objections to those requests. MCHS contends that the filing of the 

Motion to Compel was premature in light of the parties’ on-going 

discussions. The Motion to Compel was granted merely because it was 

unopposed and MCHS thereafter made substantive response to plaintiff’s 

discovery requests. Under all these circumstances, the Court 

concludes that an award of expenses and fees even in connection with 

the filing of the Motion to Compel is not justified. 

In short, plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 50, is 

without merit and it is therefore DENIED. 

October 1, 2013 s/ Norah McCann King 

DATE NORAH McCANN KING 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cv-00189-ALM-NMK Doc #: 79 Filed: 10/01/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>