Filed: Feb. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Proceeding pro se , plaintiff Billy Ray Sullins and his wife, Angela Dawn Sullins, brought this 42 U.S.C. 1983 case against Garden City, Georgia police officers for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. CV415-101, doc. 5 at 2; CV415-138, doc. 5. After the defendants answered (and Angela's separately filed case was consolidated into this case, CV415-101), they served discovery upon the plaintiffs but have received no response. They thus move
Summary: ORDER G. R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . Proceeding pro se , plaintiff Billy Ray Sullins and his wife, Angela Dawn Sullins, brought this 42 U.S.C. 1983 case against Garden City, Georgia police officers for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. CV415-101, doc. 5 at 2; CV415-138, doc. 5. After the defendants answered (and Angela's separately filed case was consolidated into this case, CV415-101), they served discovery upon the plaintiffs but have received no response. They thus move t..
More
ORDER
G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
Proceeding pro se, plaintiff Billy Ray Sullins and his wife, Angela Dawn Sullins, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case against Garden City, Georgia police officers for violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. CV415-101, doc. 5 at 2; CV415-138, doc. 5. After the defendants answered (and Angela's separately filed case was consolidated into this case, CV415-101), they served discovery upon the plaintiffs but have received no response. They thus move to compel. CV415-101, doc. 20. Upon review, the Court finds the motion supported and the discovery (e.g., interrogatories requesting the identities of eye witnesses, whether Billy Ray Sullins has ever been convicted of a crime, etc., doc. 20-2 at 3) relevant and appropriate.
Plaintiffs, however, have failed to respond to the motion. See doc. 20) ("Responses due by 2/8/2016"). Because the defendants' motion is supported and unopposed per Local Rule 7.5 (no response means no opposition), it is GRANTED. Doc. 20. Plaintiffs' failure to respond to defendants' discovery within fourteen days after the date this Order is served will expose them to a recommendation of dismissal under abandonment and disobedience grounds. See L.R. 41(b).1
Defendants do not seek Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions for plaintiffs' failure to respond. Payment of expenses (including attorney's fees), however, typically is mandatory when, "after giving an opportunity to be heard," courts grant motions to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Only if (1) "the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the. . . discovery without court action;" (2) the failure to respond was justified; or (3) "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust, may a court decline to award expenses to a prevailing party. Id.
None of those exceptions apply here and plaintiffs had their chance to be heard. Consequently, the Court ORDERS that they pay defendants' "reasonable expenses incurred in making" their motion to compel, "including attorney's fees." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Defendants must submit an itemized list of expenses and fees within fourteen days of the date this Order is served so the Court can evaluate their reasonableness and issue an expense award.2
To summarize: Defendants' motion to compel is GRANTED. Doc. 20. Plaintiffs' failure to respond to defendants' discovery within fourteen days after the date this Order is served will expose them to a recommendation of dismissal under abandonment and disobedience grounds. See L.R. 41(b). Defendants, meanwhile, must submit an itemized list of expenses, including attorney's fees, within 14 days from the date this Order is served. Plaintiffs shall have 11 days after that filing to contest defendants' Rule 37 cost showing.
SO ORDERED.
