-1- UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

____________________________________) LARRY K

LAYMAN , ) ) P la in t if f, )

) v. ) Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -1 00 5 ( JD B) ) DA VI D B ARM AK, e t a l. ) ) De fend ant s. ) ____________________________________) OR DE R L arr y Klay man, proc eedingpro se, ha s filed claims for brea ch of c ontrac t and bre ach of fi du c iary duty a g a ins t atto rn e y

Da vid B arm ak a

nd the law f ir m of Min tz, L e vin , Co hn , F e rr is, Glovsky , and Popeo, P.C. Currently befor e the c ourt is [ 43] defendants' motion for summary judgme nt, and [45] defe ndants' motion to t reat their motion for summary judgme nt as conc eded. Plaintiff has not responde d to either motion. For the rea sons detailed below, the Court gr ants the defe ndant' s motion for summary judgme nt as conc eded. Under L ocal Rule 7(b) , when a

n opposition t o a motion has not been f iled within eleven day s of the date of ser

vice, " the Court may

treat the motion as conce ded." See Malik v. District of Columbia, 574 F.3d 781, 786 (D .C. Cir. 2009). Defe ndants filed their motion for summar y j u d gm en to nOc t o b er

2 3 , 2 0 0 9 ; s erv i ce wa s co mp l et edth at s am e d ay th ro u ghth e C o urt 's CM/ECF electr onic filing sy stem. See De fs.' Mot. for Summ. J . [Docket Entry 43], at 14. I n the six wee ks since that filing , plaintiff has ne ither re sponded to the motion nor reque sted an
e xten sio n o f t ime to r e sp on d. No r h a s p la int if f r e sp on de d to de fe nd ants ' mot ion to t re a t th e ir-2-

motion for summary

judgme nt as conc eded, which was f iled and ser

ved throug h CM/ECF on November

12, 2009, even thoug h the dea dline to oppose that motion passed nea rly two wee ks ag o. See De fs.' Mot. to Treat The ir Mot. for Summ. J . as Concede d [Docket Entry 45], at 8. Be fore g rantinga motion for summary judgme nt as conc eded, district c ourts must ensure that pro se pa

rties have "f

air notice " that a " failure to respond to an a dverse party ' s summary ju dgmen t m ot io n m ay

res ul t i n t he d is tr ict cou rtgrant in g the m ot io n an d d is mi ss in g the c ase. " Fox v. St rickland, 837 F .2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Althoug h the Court has not issued a socalled " Fox order" in this case, it cannot r easona bly be disputed that plaintiff ha s fair notice of

"' the risks attendingfailure to respond to a summary judgme nt motion.'" I d. (quoting Ham v. Smith, 65 3 F .2 d 6 28 , 6 30 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 1) ). Af te r a ll, the pla int if

f h e re is n o o rd ina

ry pr o s e litigant: an e x perie nced attorney , he has a ppear ed as c ounsel in dozens, if not hundreds, of fede ral c ases. See Klay

man v. J udicial Watch, Inc., 628 F . Supp. 2d 112, 122 n.6 (D.D.C. 2009) (K lay man is " an e xpe ri e nc e d, lic e ns e d atto rn e y " wh o, a s a n o ff ic e r o f t he c ourt , s ho uld

" be we ll
awa re of his obligations to timely

respond to dispositive motions ") . Moreove r, plaintiff ha s proven himself f

amiliar with the Court' s CM/EC F f iling sy stem, the method by which the pe nd ingmot ion s w e re se rv e d: t hr ou g ho ut t

his lit ig a tio n h e ha s r e pe a te dly us e d th e e le c tr on ic filing sy stem both to file and to oppose motions. Pla int if f' s c ur re nt s ile nc e is n ot s imp ly

an une xpla ine d h ic c up in a n o the rw ise dil ig e ntl y prosec uted ca se. To the c ontrary , plaintiff re quested no fe wer than six extensions of ti me during br ie fi ngc on c e rn ingde fe nd ants ' mot ion to d ism iss his c omp la int . Pl a int if f h a s a lso fa ile d to comply with even the most basic of discovery

require ments: three months afte r they wer e due, plaintiff still has failed to produce adequate Rule 26(a) (1) disclosure s, a fa ilure for which theDe fe nd ants a sk the Court to a wa rd the m th e a tto rn e y s f

e e s in c ur re d in pr e pa ri ngthe ir 1 mot ion to t re a t th e ir mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt a s c on c e de d. Se e De fs .' Mo t. t o T re a t T he ir Mot. for Summ. J . as Concede d at 6 n.2. The Court de nies this request. The cost of filing paper s to o bta in s umm ary

jud g me nt i s a

ro uti ne on e in l iti g a tio n, and pla int if f' s f a ilure to r e sp on d h a s in fac t probably

saved de fenda

nts some fee s. The Court notes, howe ver, that the sanctions imposed on Oc tob e r 2 8, 20 09 , r e ma in i n e ff e c t. L ess than an hour

befor e this Order

was filed, de fenda

nts filed [46] a motion for entr y of 2 jud g me nt. Th is m oti on

me re ly re pe a ts the argume nts a dd re sse d a bo ve . N on e the le ss, be c a

us e pla int if f h a s n ot h a d a

n o pp or tun ity to r e sp on d to the mot ion , th e Court ha s n ot c on sid e re d it

in issuing this Order
. -3- Court has imposed monetary sanctions. See Oc t. 28, 2009 Order [Docket Entry

44], at 2. Indeed, the Court's most re cent de adline for plaintiff to supplement his initi al disclosures pa ssed
o v er a m o n thago , y etth e C o urt h as n o i n d i ca t i o nth at p l ai n t i ff h as co mp l i edwi thth e C o urt 's
or de r. Ad dit ion a lly , a c c or din g to d e fe nd ants , p la int if f h a s n ot r e sp on de d to de fe nd ants ' re qu e st fo r p ay me nt o f t he Court -i mpo se d s anc tio ns . T h e C o urt ca np er ce i v e n o re as o n-- an d ce rt ai n l y n o l egi t i m at e r ea s o n-- fo r p l ai n t i ff 's fa ilure to o pp os e de fe nd ants ' mot ion s. Rathe r, pla int if f' s si le nc e c or

re sp on ds wi th h is consistently

indiffer ent appr oach to Court-or dere d deadlines in this case . The Court there fore g rants def endants' motion for summary judgme nt as conc eded. 1 Acc ording ly , it is hereby OR DE RE D that [45] defe ndants' motion to t reat their motion for summary judgme nt as
c on c e de d is G RA NT ED ; and it is further OR DE RE D that [43 ] de fe nd ants ' mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt i s GR

ANTED as
conce ded. 2 SO ORDERED. / s /-4- J OHN D. B ATES Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Date: De cembe r 4, 2009