United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH DISCOVERY ORDER
Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff
Eliyahu Mirlis (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against
Defendant Sarah Greer (“Defendant”) to recover
funds that he alleges were fraudulently transferred to the
Defendant. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's
motion for sanctions against the Defendant and her counsel.
(ECF No. 77.) For the reasons discussed below, the motion for
sanctions is GRANTED with respect to the Defendant to the
extent set forth in this ruling. No sanctions are awarded
against the Defendant's counsel.
The
Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts of the
case and only sets forth the facts and legal standards
necessary to decide this motion.
I.
FACTS
The
Plaintiff served discovery requests on the Defendant on May
21, 2019; compliance with the discovery requests was due on
or before June 20, 2019. (Plaintiff's August 19 Letter to
the Court at 1.) Following a request by the Defendant, the
deadline for compliance was extended to July 22, 2019.
(Id.) The Defendant did not respond to any of the
Interrogatories or produce any responsive documents by this
deadline (Id.) Plaintiff's counsel emailed
Defendant's counsel on July 23, 2019 and July 25, 2019
and demanded compliance. (Id.) Plaintiff's
counsel then conferred with Defendant's counsel
telephonically on July 31, 2019, at which time
Defendant's counsel indicated that the Defendant would
not immediately comply with the outstanding discovery
request. (Id.)
The
parties submitted letter briefs to the Court concerning this
discovery dispute. (See ECF No. 69; Plaintiff's
August 19 Letter to the Court; Defendant's August 19
Letter to the Court.) In her letter, the Defendant did not
set forth any reason why the responses could not have been
served in a timely manner and why the Court should not order
compliance with the discovery request. (Defendant's
August 19 Letter to the Court.) Accordingly, the Court
construed the Plaintiff's letter brief as a motion to
compel and granted the motion. (ECF No. 69.) The Court
ordered the Defendant to serve complete answers to the
discovery requests within 14 days of its order-by September
9, 2019. (Id.) The Defendant failed to comply with
this deadline and, ten days after the deadline expired, filed
a motion for extension. (ECF No. 78.) The Court denied the
motion for extension. (ECF No. 80.) To date, the Defendant
has not complied with the discovery requests.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
If a
party fails to obey an order to provide discovery, the Court
may “order the disobedient party, the attorney advising
that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, caused by the failure [to obey the
discovery order], unless the failure was substantially
justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C). “Numerous
factors are relevant to a district court's exercise of
its broad discretion to order sanctions under Rule 37,
including (1) the willfulness of the non-compliant party or
the reason for the noncompliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser
sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of noncompliance,
and (4) whether the non-compliant party had been warned of
the consequences of his non-compliance.” Nieves v.
City of New York, 208 F.R.D. 531, 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
In addition, sanctions under Rule 37 are intended to serve
three purposes: (1) “they ensure that a party will not
benefit from its own failure to comply, ” (2)
“they are specific deterrents and seek to obtain
compliance with the particular order issued, ” and (3)
“they are intended to serve a general deterrent effect
on the case at hand and on other litigation, provided that
the party against whom they are imposed was in some sense at
fault.” Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Pub., Ltd.,
843 F.2d 67, 71 (2d Cir. 1988).
III.
DISCUSSION
The
Defendant has not shown that her failure to respond to the
Plaintiff's discovery request or to the Court's order
was “substantially justified” or that
“other circumstances” make an award of expenses
unjust. To the contrary, all relevant factors counsel in
favor of sanctions.
First,
the Defendant's noncompliance was willful. Defendant does
not argue that she was unaware of the deadlines for
compliance. She also fails to set forth adequate reasons for
her failure to comply. In fact, in her August 19, 2019 letter
to the Court, she did not set forth any reason why
the responses could not have been served in a timely manner.
(See ECF No. 69; Defendant's August 19, 2019
Letter to the Court). And in her response to the motion for
sanctions, she said only that she failed to comply because
she was “deeply involved in preparation for [her
husband's] trial and justifiably under an unusually
stressful situation prior to and during trial.” (ECF
No. 81). But she was originally required to produce answers
to the Plaintiff's discovery request well in advance of
her husband's trial and, in any case, she was given ample
opportunity to comply during this stressful period in her
life. Thus, not only did Defendant fail to comply with the
discovery request or the Court's order despite being
aware of the deadlines (original and extended), but she also
failed to set forth adequate reasons for her failure to
comply.
Second,
noncompliance-first with the discovery requests and later
with the Court's order-has been ongoing for several
months. The deadline for compliance with the discovery
requests was originally June 20, 2019. (Plaintiff's
August 19 Letter to the Court at 1.) The deadline was
extended to July 22, 2019. (Id.) The Court then
ordered compliance by September 9, 2019. (ECF No. 69.) On
September 19, 2019-ten days after the
already-extended deadline expired-the Defendant filed another
motion for extension. (ECF No. 78.) The Court denied this
motion for extension on September 22, 2019, (ECF No. 80), but
the Defendant has yet to comply.
Third,
the Defendant has been given notice of the consequences of
noncompliance. The Plaintiff's motion for sanctions set
forth the specific sanctions requested here. (ECF No. 77.)
The Court subsequently ordered the Defendant to show cause
why the Court should not impose the requested sanctions. (ECF
No. 80.) The Defendant was therefore aware of the potential
consequences of noncompliance; yet, to date, Defendant has
not complied.
IV.
...