Garrido v. F&M Construction And Development Corp.

Background

Plaintiff Efren Garrido, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, reported that Defendants F&M Construction And Development Corp. and Fodie M. Koita had repeatedly failed to comply with discovery requirements and court orders. The alleged failures included not serving Rule 26 initial disclosures, not responding to requests for documents, interrogatories, and admissions, not producing responsive documents, not meeting case-management deadlines, and not cooperating with Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff also reported that defense counsel did not appear for court-ordered mediation, which the mediator confirmed.

The Court previously warned Defendants and defense counsel that continued noncompliance could lead to sanctions, including monetary sanctions and preventing Defendants from using certain defenses. The Court allowed Plaintiff to move to compel if the violations continued. Plaintiff then filed a motion to compel, and Defendants did not respond as required.

Further extensions and noncompliance

After the Court ordered defense counsel to explain why sanctions should not be imposed, defense counsel requested 14 additional days to provide the outstanding discovery. The Court granted that request and ordered production by the deadline, along with a joint status letter. Plaintiff later reported that he had received none of the outstanding discovery, documents, or initial disclosures. Defense counsel requested additional extensions, but Plaintiff subsequently reported that Defendants still had not taken action to correct the discovery violations.

The Court then ordered defense counsel to file an affidavit confirming that he had informed Defendants about the possibility of sanctions and to respond to Plaintiff’s report. The deadline passed without that filing.

Ruling

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel. It ordered defense counsel and Defendants to file, by June 28, 2022, at 5:00 p.m., a letter showing why they should not be sanctioned. The Court stated that counsel could not remain counsel of record while ignoring court orders if personal circumstances prevented him from carrying out his responsibilities. It also stated that Defendants could not avoid the consequences of their chosen counsel’s acts or omissions.

The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions listed at docket entries 40 and 52. The order itself did not impose sanctions; it required Defendants and defense counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.