Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rude v. Dancing Crab At Washington Harbour

September 19, 2007

JONATHAN W. RUDE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE DANCING CRAB AT WASHINGTON HARBOUR, LP, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion [29] for Partial Summary Judgment and plaintiff's Motion [38] for Sanctions. Plaintiff's motion [29] seeks summary judgment to strike defendants' affirmative defenses of trespasser, contributory negligence, and assumption of the risk. Plaintiff's motion [38] requests the Court to enter default as to both defendants, and in the alternative, the motion [38] requests to prohibit defendants from calling any witnesses identified in the Court's May 15, 2006 Order [21] and to prevent defendants from disputing the facts stated in the depositions of James Sylvester and Michael Gillman. Plaintiff's motion [38] also seeks leave to move for attorney's fees. Having considered plaintiff's motions, defendants' oppositions, plaintiff's replies, the entire record herein, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES plaintiff's Motion [29] for Partial Summary Judgment and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiff's Motion [38] for Sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On June 27, 2004, plaintiff, a college football player for Georgetown University weighing between 270 and 280 pounds (Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 1), got into a fight with Olyanika Adeobyeku ("Yinka"), a college football player at the University of Maryland who was employed by the Dancing Crab at Washington Harbor ("Dancing Crab") as a doorman and bouncer. (Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 8 at 41; Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 19.) At approximately 1:45 A.M. on June 27, plaintiff went to the Dancing Crab, a restaurant and bar (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 8), to give his friend, Michael Gillman, a ride home. (Pl.'s Mem. of P & A in Supp. of Summ. J. Ex. at 24-25.) Yinka saw plaintiff and was agitated that plaintiff was at the Dancing Crab because plaintiff had been banned from the Dancing Crab the previous week for an altercation with Yinka. (See Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 14; Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 6 at 59.) Another employee of the Dancing Crab, knowing that plaintiff was banned from the Dancing Crab, instructed a bartender to ask plaintiff to leave, and a police officer then escorted plaintiff off the Dancing Crab's premises to avoid any conflict with Yinka. (See Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 7 at 82.)

Yinka chased after plaintiff, and Anthony Wood ("Wood"), another bouncer and doorman at the Dancing Crab, followed Yinka. (Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 1 at 33.) At the time, both Yinka and Wood had finished work for the night. (See Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 7 at 82.) When Yinka caught up to plaintiff, he walked beside plaintiff for about a block and a half. (Pl.'s Mem. of P & A in Supp. of Summ. J. Attach. 4 at 72.) Yinka then lunged at plaintiff and struck him in the head, and a street fight broke out. (Id. at 77, 106.) Wood intervened and ensured that the plaintiff and Yinka had a fair fight. (Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 5 at 148-49.) Plaintiff and Yinka proceeded to exchange blows. (Id.) Plaintiff lost the fight (Pl.'s Mem. of P & A in Supp. of Summ. J. Attach. 6-B at 5) and suffered several injuries (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 37).

Yinka and Wood then left the scene and did not return to the Dancing Crab. (Defs.' Opp'n to Summ. J. Ex. 8 at 62.)

B. Procedural Background

On June 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against defendants to recover personal injuries. (Pl.'s Comp. ¶¶ 41-67.) During the course of discovery, plaintiff filed three separate motions [16, 19, 20] to compel.*fn1 (See Pl.'s Mem. of P & A in Supp. of Mot. for Sanctions [herein after Pl.'s Mem.] at 2.) On May 15, 2006, the Court granted all three motions to compel and ordered the defendants to comply fully with plaintiff's discovery requests. (See Ct. Order [21]; Ct. Order [22]; Ct. Order [23].) In addition, the Court ordered that if defendants fail to comply with the discovery orders, plaintiff may move the court for sanctions. (See Ct. Order [22]; Ct. Order [23].)

Plaintiff alleges that defendants did not comply with the discovery orders, and now moves this Court to impose sanctions on defendants. In particular, plaintiff contends that defendants did not provide the witness information required by Court Order [21]. (Pl.'s Mem. at 7.) Furthermore, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to comply with Court Orders [22, 23] because defendants failed to produce relevant business documentation and engaged in the spoliation of evidence by not disclosing the existence of security cameras and tapes that may have captured the incident. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiff seeks the sanction of default. In the alternative, plaintiff requests the Court to prohibit defendants from calling any witnesses identified in the Court's May 15, 2006 Order [21] and from refuting the facts stated in the depositions of James Sylvester and Michael Gillman. Plaintiff also asks for leave to file a motion for attorney's fees.

In addition to plaintiff's motion [38], plaintiff's motion [29] for partial summary judgment remains pending before the Court. Plaintiff's motion [29] seeks to strike defendants' affirmative defenses of trespass, contributory negligence, and assumption of the risk. Because a ruling granting plaintiff's motion [38] would render motion [29] moot, the Court will address plaintiff's Motion [38] for Sanctions first and then turn its attention to plaintiff's Motion [29] for Partial Summary Judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.