Mogollan v. La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-03202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mogollan v. La Abundancia, Judge Daniels granted in part defendants’ request, giving Hector de la Rosa more time to respond or face a dismissal recommendation.
Hector de la Rosa was given additional discovery and deposition deadlines and faced a possible recommendation that his claims be dismissed if he did not comply. The defendants’ ability to pursue discovery and defend against his claims was also affected.
What happened
Mogollan v. La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc. involved defendants’ request concerning opt-in plaintiff Hector de la Rosa’s failure to answer court-ordered discovery. The discovery included requests for admissions and written questions about his overtime claims, and responses were due June 26, then July 3, 2020.
The defendants argued that de la Rosa had stopped participating, had not explained his failure to respond, and had prejudiced their ability to defend his claims. They asked the court to require him to explain his failure and to treat his claims as withdrawn or dismiss them.
Judge George Daniels granted the request in part. The order gave de la Rosa until July 10, 2020, to provide discovery responses and until July 17, 2020, to appear for a deposition; if he failed, the court would recommend dismissing his claims for failure to prosecute. The parties had to report compliance by July 20, 2020.
The detailed version
- Mogollan v. La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-03202
- George Daniels
- July 6, 2020
Background
Defendants filed an application concerning opt-in plaintiff Hector de la Rosa’s failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The court had authorized written discovery on de la Rosa and Nidia Perdomo. Defendants served requests for admissions and interrogatories on June 19, 2020. De la Rosa did not provide responses by the original June 26 deadline or the extended July 3 deadline.
The application stated that de la Rosa had not recently communicated with his counsel and had not explained his failure to respond. Defendants also stated that they had tried to resolve the issue with plaintiffs’ counsel. They argued that de la Rosa’s failure delayed the case, increased their costs, and impaired their ability to defend his claims concerning unpaid overtime.
Legal framework
Defendants relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), which permits sanctions when a party disobeys a discovery order, and Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. The opinion explained that possible sanctions under Rule 37(b) range up to dismissal, but the selected sanction must be just and related to the claim addressed by the discovery order. The court also discussed factors relevant to dismissal under Rule 41(b), including the length of the noncompliance, notice of possible dismissal, prejudice to defendants, docket management, and whether a less severe sanction had been considered.
Ruling
The court marked the application “GRANTED IN PART.” It found that de la Rosa violated a court order by failing to provide the required discovery responses. The court gave him until July 10, 2020, to provide those responses and until July 17, 2020, to appear for a deposition.
The order did not immediately dismiss de la Rosa’s claims. Instead, it stated that if he failed to provide discovery responses by July 10 and/or failed to appear for the deposition by July 17, the court would recommend that his claims be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The parties were ordered to notify the court by July 20 whether de la Rosa had complied and/or appeared. The order also stated that the court could make a report and recommendation concerning de la Rosa and Claudia Vasquez Ibarra, whose claims still appeared as pending on the electronic docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.