Steven E. Greer v. Susan Harreld, et al.

S.D. Ohio

Steven E. Greer v. Susan Harreld, et al.

DecidedMarch 5, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-01237

StatusUnknown

This text of Steven E. Greer v. Susan Harreld, et al. (Steven E. Greer v. Susan Harreld, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steven E. Greer v. Susan Harreld, et al., (S.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN E. GREER,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:24-cv-1237 Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura SUSAN HARRELD, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37. (ECF No. 148.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks the imposition of sanctions against Defendants under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(d). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the discovery obligations of parties and their attorneys, and authorize federal courts to impose sanctions on those who fail to meet these obligations.” United States v. Quebe, 321 F.R.D. 303, 310 (S.D. Ohio 2017) (quoting Laukus v. Rio Brands, Inc., 292 F.R.D. 485, 500–01 (N.D. Ohio 2013)). “Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), a district court may sanction parties who fail to comply with its orders . . . .” Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe, 916 F.2d 1067, 1073 (6th Cir. 1990)). Similarly, Rule 37(d) provides for sanctions against a party who “fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response” to “interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii); see also, e.g., Beil v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 15 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 1994). Based on the parties’ representations during the February 24, 2026 discovery conference, Defendants served their written responses and objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents shortly before that date. (See Order Memorializing Feb. 24, 2026 Conference, ECF No. 142.) And Plaintiff’s Motion reflects that, as ordered by the

undersigned on February 24, 2026, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s enumerated complaints concerning Defendants’ written discovery responses on March 3, 2026. (See March 3, 2026 Letter, ECF No. 148-3). Plaintiff therefore has not demonstrated that Defendants either (1) failed to respond to his discovery requests, as would support sanctions under Rule 37(d), or (2) failed to comply with a court order relating to discovery, as would support sanctions under Rule 37(b). Having established no grounds for the imposition of sanctions, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37 (ECF No. 148) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN E. GREER,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:24-cv-1237 Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura SUSAN HARRELD, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37. (ECF No. 148.) Therein, Plaintiff seeks the imposition of sanctions against Defendants under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(d). “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the discovery obligations of parties and their attorneys, and authorize federal courts to impose sanctions on those who fail to meet these obligations.” United States v. Quebe, 321 F.R.D. 303, 310 (S.D. Ohio 2017) (quoting Laukus v. Rio Brands, Inc., 292 F.R.D. 485, 500–01 (N.D. Ohio 2013)). “Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), a district court may sanction parties who fail to comply with its orders . . . .” Bass v. Jostens, Inc., 71 F.3d 237, 241 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Bank One of Cleveland, N.A. v. Abbe, 916 F.2d 1067, 1073 (6th Cir. 1990)). Similarly, Rule 37(d) provides for sanctions against a party who “fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response” to “interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(ii); see also, e.g., Beil v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 15 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 1994). Based on the parties’ representations during the February 24, 2026 discovery conference, Defendants served their written responses and objections to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of documents shortly before that date. (See Order Memorializing Feb. 24, 2026 Conference, ECF No. 142.) And Plaintiff’s Motion reflects that, as ordered by the

undersigned on February 24, 2026, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s enumerated complaints concerning Defendants’ written discovery responses on March 3, 2026. (See March 3, 2026 Letter, ECF No. 148-3). Plaintiff therefore has not demonstrated that Defendants either (1) failed to respond to his discovery requests, as would support sanctions under Rule 37(d), or (2) failed to comply with a court order relating to discovery, as would support sanctions under Rule 37(b). Having established no grounds for the imposition of sanctions, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37 (ECF No. 148) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Steven E. Greer v. Susan Harreld, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-e-greer-v-susan-harreld-et-al-ohsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack