Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

STEELMAN v. CITY OF SALEM, 4:12CV191 JCH. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20130617711 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 14, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2013
Summary: ORDER JEAN C. HAMILTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, filed on June 6, 2013. (ECF No. 53). By way of background, the Court previously set this matter for trial on Monday, June 24, 2013. (ECF No. 46). The parties had been ordered to file the following by June 4, 2013 1 : 1) a Joint Stipulation of uncontested facts, 2) lists of proposed witnesses, 3) lists of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at trial, 4) lists of interrogatory answe
More

ORDER

JEAN C. HAMILTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, filed on June 6, 2013. (ECF No. 53). By way of background, the Court previously set this matter for trial on Monday, June 24, 2013. (ECF No. 46). The parties had been ordered to file the following by June 4, 20131: 1) a Joint Stipulation of uncontested facts, 2) lists of proposed witnesses, 3) lists of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at trial, 4) lists of interrogatory answers, parts of depositions, and requests for admissions proposed to be offered into evidence at trial, 5) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 6) trial briefs. (ECF Nos. 20, 46). The Court warned that failure to file these documents might result in the imposition of sanctions. (ECF No. 20).

As noted in Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff has failed to file any of these documents. Plaintiff has also failed to respond to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, and the time for filing a response has now passed. See Local Rule 7-4.01(B). In light of the foregoing, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion for Sanctions in part and will order the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. An appropriate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 53) is DENIED in all other respects.

FootNotes


1. More specifically, the parties were ordered to file their pretrial documents no less than twenty (20) days prior to the trial date. See ECF No. 20, p. 2.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer