United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division, Lafayette
OPINION AND ORDER
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on the Defendant's, ACell
Inc., Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to
Rules 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [ECF No. 33], the Plaintiff's, Erol Ali
Cetinok, Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 37], the Defendant's Motion to
Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline until 30 Days after
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Decided [ECF No. 41],
the Plaintiff's Motion to Request Protective Order
Against Defendant's Request for Documentation,
Information, and Questions/Answers Related to the Following
(Request 3; Interrogatory 6) [ECF No. 43], and the
Plaintiff's Motion to Request Protective Order Against
Defendant's Request for Documentation, Information and
Questions/Answers Related to the Following (Requests 6 and 7;
Interrogatories 3, 4, and 5) [ECF No. 44].
BACKGROUND
The
Plaintiff filed a Complaint [ECF No. 1] on April 25, 2016,
alleging that the Defendant violated his civil rights to be
free from employment discrimination on the basis of his
religion and religious beliefs pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title 1 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1991. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant terminated
his employment due to his religious beliefs. (Pl.'s
Compl. ¶¶ 1, 31.) The parties subsequently engaged
in extensive motion practice, and several of these motions
are now ripe for review.
ANALYSIS
A.
Defendant's Motions
The
Defendant has filed two motions for the Court to consider-a
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint Pursuant to Rules
37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure [ECF No. 33], and Defendant's Motion to Extend
Dispositive Motion Deadline until 30 Days after
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Decided [ECF No. 41].
For the reasons articulated below, the Court DENIES the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS the
Defendant's Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion
Deadline.
1.
Motion to Dismiss
The
Defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2)(A)(v) and 41(b) to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint
for failure to participate in discovery. The Defendant also
moves for attorneys' fees accrued in defending this
action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) provides the
means by which courts may dismiss a case as a sanction
against a party who fails to comply with a court order or
fails to comply with or permit discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(b)(2). As a discovery sanction under Rule 37, a district
court may dismiss a case upon finding that the plaintiff,
through his actions, displayed willfulness, bad faith, or
fault. Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 696 (7th
Cir. 2009); Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 467
(7th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Ramirez v.
T&H Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 2016).
In contrast, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes
the sanction of dismissal, upon a party's motion, based
on a “clear record of delay or contumacious
conduct.” Brown v. Columbia Sussex Corp., 664
F.3d 182, 190 (7th Cir. 2011). Because the Defendant seeks
the sanction of dismissal based on purported discovery
abuses, the Court applies the standard of willfulness, bad
faith, or fault under Rule 37. See Brown, 664 F.3d
at 190-91 (describing the Rule 41(b) standard as
“stricter” than the standard under Rule 37(b) and
recognizing that “a finding of willfulness, bad faith
or fault is only necessary if Rule 41(b)'s ‘clear
record' of delay is not present” (quoting
Maynard, 332 F.3d at 468)).
The
Seventh Circuit requires that evidence of discovery abuse
under Rule 37 be shown by a preponderance of the
evidence. Ramirez, 845 F.3d at 777.
Moreover, the Seventh Circuit has stated that a court must
use its dismissal power sparingly, as it is a “harsh
sanction” which should “be employed only as a
last resort.” Rice v. City of Chicago, 333
F.3d 780, 786 (7th Cir. 2003).
Such a
sanction is inappropriate in this case. The Defendant has not
met its burden of showing that the Plaintiff displayed
willfulness, bad faith, or fault. The Plaintiff has
participated in this case, including producing documents for
discovery [ECF No. 32]. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is pro se
and may not be aware of the harsh sanction he could face as a
result of failing to adequately respond to discovery. R R
v. City of East Chicago, Ind., No. 2:12-CV-93, 2013 WL
4674815, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 30, 2013). Therefore, the
Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2)(A)(v)
and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [ECF No.
33].
2.
Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion
Deadline
On
April 30, 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion to Extend
Dispositive Motion Deadline until 30 Days after
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is Decided [ECF No. 41].
The Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion [ECF No. 41] and
extends the dispositive motion deadline until
July 31, 2019. However, the Court
notes that discovery in this matter is closed and will not
reopen with the extension of this deadline. The Plaintiff has
provided the Defendant with discovery, and discovery in this
case closed in March 2018. Further, the Court has already
granted the Defendant's first Motion to Compel [ECF No.
31], and it is unclear what, if any, benefit there would be
in extending the discovery deadline.
B.
...