The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge
In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for Failure to Comply with the
Court's Orders [#47] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
It is further, hereby,
ORDERED that counsel shall individually show cause, within ten days of the
date of this Order, why I should not sanction each of them for behavior
during the discovery process as outlined in the accompanying Memorandum
Opinion. It is further, hereby,
ORDERED that counsel meet and confer within ten days of this
Order, to resolve any outstanding interrogatories and requests to
produce documents. If the parties are unable to resolve any
outstanding matters, they shall, within twenty days of the date
of this Order, file a joint praecipe certifying that they have
made a genuine effort to resolve their differences but failed.
Plaintiff may then, by that same latter date, move to compel any
additional responses or documents.
SO ORDERED. MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case was referred to me for all discovery disputes.
Currently pending and ready for resolution is Plaintiff's Motion
for Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for
Failure to Comply with the Court's Orders. For the reasons
stated below, plaintiff's motion will be granted in part and
denied in part.
Plaintiff, Lawrence Caldwell, ("plaintiff") was previously
confined as a prisoner at the Central Detention Facility in the
District of Columbia. According to plaintiff, while he was an
inmate, he required the medical services of The Center for
Correctional Health and Policy Studies, Inc., and others ("CCHPS"
or "defendants"). The basis of plaintiff's civil suit against
defendants is that the dental, eye, skin cancer, and transport
services provided by defendants were not adequate and that he
also suffered retaliation as a result of his complaining about
the quality of the care he received. Amended Complaint for
Monetary Damages, Declaratory Relief, and a Trial by Judge.
I. The Course of Discovery
On March 15, 2004, plaintiff served defendants with
interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests.
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for Failure to
Comply with the Court's Orders ("Plains. Mem."), Wallach
Declaration at 1. On June 3, 2004, at a status hearing held
before Judge Kessler, discovery was stayed and the case was
referred for mediation. Plains. Mem., Exhibit 1. By order of the
same date, the court indicated that the parties were still
obliged to respond to any outstanding discovery requests,
"including Defendants' identification of expert witnesses due on
June 8, 2004," but that any additional discovery was stayed.
Id. On July 30, 2004, defendants responded to plaintiff's
requests for admission. Plains. Mem., Wallach Declaration at 2.
On August 17, 2004, another status hearing was held before
Judge Kessler. By minute entry of the same date, the court set a
discovery deadline of December 1, 2004, thus lifting the
previously imposed stay. Id. at 3. On October 28, 2004,
defendants responded to the majority of plaintiff's document
requests and on December 29, 2004, defendants supplemented that
On January 3, 2005, I had a telephone conference call with
counsel. Following the call, I ordered, inter alia, defendants
to reply to any outstanding interrogatories by January 17, 2005,
and indicated that plaintiff could, by the same date, move to
compel if the answers were not received. Plains. Mem., Exhibit 3.
I also indicated that the parties would have until January 17, 2005 to schedule any remaining depositions and that plaintiff
would have 7 hours to depose Dr. Hammond and ...