MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on "Combat Medical Systems, LLC's Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37(b)" (document #120) and the parties' briefs and exhibits.

This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and this Motion is now ripe for the Court's consideration.

The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, as well as the record and authorities. For the reasons stated in Defendant's briefs, the Court respectfully recommends that the Motion be GRANTED and sanctions imposed as discussed below.

On July 18, 2018, the Court granted Defendant's "Motion to Compel" (document #104). See "Order" (document #113). The Court ordered "Plaintiff's objections to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 1 are overruled and the Motion is granted. Within fifteen days of this Order, Plaintiff shall provide a complete supplemental response to Defendant's Interrogatory No. 1." Id.

In its Motion, Defendant Combat Medical Systems, LLC credibly alleges that Plaintiff's responses to Interrogatory No. 1 are still deficient. Rather than make a complete response, Plaintiff interposed further objections, argued the "materiality" of the Interrogatory, and provided substantive responses only in the context of those objections and arguments.

Defendant seeks sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) as well as pursuant to the Court's inherent powers. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) (sanctions for failing to obey a discovery order) and Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (court's inherent powers).

RECOMMENDATION

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that "Combat Medical Systems, LLC's Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 37(b)" (document #120) be GRANTED and that sanctions be imposed as determined by the District Judge.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

The parties are hereby advised that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the recommendation contained in this Memorandum must be filed within fourteen days after service of same. Failure to file objections to this Memorandum with the District Court constitutes a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge. Diamond v. Colonial Life, 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1365 (4th Cir. 1989). Moreover, failure to file timely objections will also preclude the parties from raising such objections on appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985); Diamond, 416 F.3d at 316; Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003); Wells, 109 F.3d at 201; Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr.

SO RECOMMENDED AND ORDERED.