Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER DEBORAH K. CHASANOW , District Judge . On January 16, 2018, Defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. moved to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, and she was ordered to provide answers to Defendant's discovery requests. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff provided some responses after the Order, but the responses were not full and complete. (ECF No. 21). On April 24, 2018, Defendant again moved to compel. (ECF No. 21-2). Pla
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER DEBORAH K. CHASANOW , District Judge . On January 16, 2018, Defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. moved to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, and she was ordered to provide answers to Defendant's discovery requests. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff provided some responses after the Order, but the responses were not full and complete. (ECF No. 21). On April 24, 2018, Defendant again moved to compel. (ECF No. 21-2). Plai..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.
On January 16, 2018, Defendant Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. moved to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, and she was ordered to provide answers to Defendant's discovery requests. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff provided some responses after the Order, but the responses were not full and complete. (ECF No. 21). On April 24, 2018, Defendant again moved to compel. (ECF No. 21-2). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, and Plaintiff was subsequently ordered to provide full and complete responses. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff apparently did not respond to that Order, and, on June 26, 2018, Defendant moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff did not respond to the Rule 37 motion. On July 16, 2018, Defendant provided a status report stating that it had not been able to take Plaintiff's deposition and had not received full and complete responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (ECF No. 27).
On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why her case should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff responded arguing that she had not complied with discovery because the discovery sought was irrelevant and over burdensome and, therefore, she should not have to comply with the requests. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff did not object to the requests when they were made and has forfeited any objection at this point. (ECF No. 18). Even if she had not forfeited her objections, Defendant's requests for information about her health, employment history, and potential witnesses are well within the scope of discovery. See Maxtena v. Marks, 289 F.R.D. 427, 434 (D.Md. 2012). Moreover, she has been previously ordered to comply twice, and a party may not ignore orders from this court. (ECF Nos. 18, 24). Unless Plaintiff provides the full responses within fourteen (14) days and arranges for her deposition to be taken within the next twenty-eight (28) days, the complaint will be dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
