Medpace, Inc. v. Agenus Inc. et al.

Background

Medpace sued Agenus Inc. and Garo H. Armen for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The court’s case-management plan set November 21, 2025, as the deadline for completing fact discovery.

Medpace later asked the court to address what it described as Defendants’ “wholesale noncompliance” with their discovery obligations. After Defendants did not respond to that request, the court allowed Medpace to file a formal sanctions motion. Medpace asked the court to strike Defendants’ pleadings and enter default judgment, or to impose lesser sanctions. Defendants did not oppose the motion.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a court to sanction a party for disobeying discovery orders. Possible sanctions include striking pleadings and entering default judgment. The court considered the reason for the noncompliance, whether lesser sanctions would be effective, how long the noncompliance lasted, and whether Defendants had been warned about the possible consequences.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that the record showed a pattern of noncompliance that was “complete, sustained and deliberate.” It emphasized Defendants’ refusal to provide discovery or otherwise litigate the matter, including their failure to respond both to Medpace’s letter raising the possibility of case-ending sanctions and to the formal sanctions motion.

Disposition

The court held that case-dispositive sanctions were appropriate. Medpace’s motion was granted; Defendants’ Answers were stricken, although the Clerk of Court was directed to leave them on the docket as part of the record; and Medpace was granted default judgment. Medpace was ordered to file a proposed judgment no later than December 10, 2025. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 57.