Filed: Feb. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2012
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the motion for sanctions in the form of dismissal (Doc. 71) filed by defendants Connie Mikolic, Paul D. Straka, and Kathy Grimm, wherein defendants move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) to dismiss pro se plaintiff Benton Colvin's complaint against them as a sanction for failing to comply with the court's order of January 10, 2012, directing Colvin to provide r
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the motion for sanctions in the form of dismissal (Doc. 71) filed by defendants Connie Mikolic, Paul D. Straka, and Kathy Grimm, wherein defendants move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) to dismiss pro se plaintiff Benton Colvin's complaint against them as a sanction for failing to comply with the court's order of January 10, 2012, directing Colvin to provide re..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the motion for sanctions in the form of dismissal (Doc. 71) filed by defendants Connie Mikolic, Paul D. Straka, and Kathy Grimm, wherein defendants move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) to dismiss pro se plaintiff Benton Colvin's complaint against them as a sanction for failing to comply with the court's order of January 10, 2012, directing Colvin to provide responses to defendants' interrogatories within twenty-one (21) days (see Doc. 70), and the court finding that pursuant to Rule 37 the court may impose sanctions upon a party for failure to comply with a discovery order up to and including dismissal of the action in whole or in part, see FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), and the court noting that dismissal is an extreme sanction,1 and it appearing that Colvin did not comply with the court's order, but rather six days after the twenty-one day period expired Colvin filed a request for an additional fourteen (14) days (Doc. 74), and upon further consideration of the order of the court (Doc. 76) granting Colvin's request (Doc. 74) for a fourteen-day extension to submit responses to the interrogatories, and it appearing that on February 24, 2007, Colvin submitted responses to the interrogatories (see Doc. 77, at 11-18), and the court concluding that Colvin has not displayed such bad faith and callous disregard for his obligations and the court's orders to warrant the sanction of dismissal of his action, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for sanctions in the form of dismissal (Doc. 71) is DENIED.