Fonseca v. American Red Cross

W.D. North Carolina

Fonseca v. American Red Cross

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedApril 11, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-00620

StatusUnknown

This text of Fonseca v. American Red Cross (Fonseca v. American Red Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fonseca v. American Red Cross, (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00620-RJC-DSC

KEVIN FONSECA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) AMERICAN RED CROSS, ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses” (document # 44) as well as the parties’ briefs and exhibits. Defendant seeks to compel pro se Plaintiff to provide complete supplemental responses to its First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s initial responses, which were untimely, are incomplete and contain boilerplate objections. The Court has carefully reviewed the record, particularly Plaintiff’s objections. For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s briefs, the Motion will be granted. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff shall serve complete supplemental responses as ORDERED below. Dismissal and the imposition of monetary sanctions are remedies available under Rule 37 for a party’s failure to obey rules governing discovery and orders of the District Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); National Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976); Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Richards & Assocs., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989); Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 561 F.2d 494, 504-04 (4th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the Court warns Plaintiff that failure to provide full and complete responses to these discovery requests, to respond to any other of Defendant’s reasonable discovery requests, or to otherwise comply fully with any of the Court’s orders, the Local Rules, or the Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions may include Plaintiff being ordered to pay Defendant’s costs including reasonable attorney’s fees in their entirety and may also include dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: 1. “Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses” (document # 44) is GRANTED. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve complete supplemental responses without objection to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and serve all documents responsive to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents. 2. The parties shall bear their own costs at this time. 3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to pro se Plaintiff, to defense counsel, and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr. SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 11, 2022

fr AC ey David S. Cayer : -f United States Magistrate Judge ae

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00620-RJC-DSC

KEVIN FONSECA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) AMERICAN RED CROSS, ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses” (document # 44) as well as the parties’ briefs and exhibits. Defendant seeks to compel pro se Plaintiff to provide complete supplemental responses to its First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s initial responses, which were untimely, are incomplete and contain boilerplate objections. The Court has carefully reviewed the record, particularly Plaintiff’s objections. For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s briefs, the Motion will be granted. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. Plaintiff shall serve complete supplemental responses as ORDERED below. Dismissal and the imposition of monetary sanctions are remedies available under Rule 37 for a party’s failure to obey rules governing discovery and orders of the District Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); National Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976); Mutual Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Richards & Assocs., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989); Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 561 F.2d 494, 504-04 (4th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the Court warns Plaintiff that failure to provide full and complete responses to these discovery requests, to respond to any other of Defendant’s reasonable discovery requests, or to otherwise comply fully with any of the Court’s orders, the Local Rules, or the Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions may include Plaintiff being ordered to pay Defendant’s costs including reasonable attorney’s fees in their entirety and may also include dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: 1. “Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses” (document # 44) is GRANTED. Within fourteen days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall serve complete supplemental responses without objection to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and serve all documents responsive to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents. 2. The parties shall bear their own costs at this time. 3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to pro se Plaintiff, to defense counsel, and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr. SO ORDERED.

Signed: April 11, 2022

fr AC ey David S. Cayer : -f United States Magistrate Judge ae

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fonseca v. American Red Cross, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fonseca-v-american-red-cross-ncwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack