Lance v. Jacobsen

Background

Kaprice Lance sued Tony Jacobsen, identified in the opinion as a peace officer with the Rochester Police Department acting in his individual capacity. The complaint alleged an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, trespass, and battery. Lance initially had a lawyer, but the court allowed that lawyer to withdraw on August 3, 2020. No replacement lawyer appeared for Lance.

Jacobsen served interrogatories and requests for documents. Lance provided only partial handwritten responses through an email from her mother and never supplied complete responses. After Jacobsen re-served the discovery requests, counsel sent additional letters and emails asking Lance to provide the missing responses or arrange a meeting. Lance did not meet the stated deadlines. She later told defense counsel that she had retained a new lawyer but did not identify that lawyer, and neither she nor a lawyer contacted defense counsel by the later deadline.

Motion to Compel and Motion to Dismiss

Jacobsen moved to compel discovery responses and Lance’s attendance at a deposition. Lance did not respond to that motion or attend its hearing. On November 12, 2020, the court ordered Lance to respond to the discovery requests and contact defense counsel to schedule a deposition. The order warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions and, if Jacobsen filed a motion, dismissal of the case.

Lance briefly contacted defense counsel but did not schedule the deposition. She did not provide discovery responses, schedule or attend a deposition, respond to Jacobsen’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, or attend the February 26, 2021 hearing on that motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow dismissal when a party fails to answer discovery or fails to prosecute the case or comply with a court order. Although dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction, the court found that Lance had received multiple opportunities and extensions, repeatedly failed to cooperate, and violated the court’s discovery order despite being warned that dismissal could result. The court also stated that a lesser sanction would be ineffective and that future compliance was unlikely. The court noted that Lance’s failure to answer requests for admissions had also left her unable to support her claims.

Disposition

The court granted Tony Jacobsen’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. It dismissed Kaprice Lance’s complaint with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered.