Smith v. Gutierres

Background

The court held an in-person status conference on August 9, 2022, but pro se plaintiff Jason M. Smith did not attend. Defense counsel stated that Smith had not provided his initial disclosures. The court had previously ordered the parties to complete fact discovery by June 10, 2022. Defendants later reported that they had not received Smith’s disclosures, and Smith represented that he would provide them by June 10, but he did not do so. The court then extended the discovery deadline to September 12, 2022.

Order

Because Smith had still not provided his initial disclosures nearly two months after the original discovery deadline, the court directed him to provide the disclosures to defendants immediately and file a docket letter by September 1, 2022 confirming that he had done so. The court warned that failure to provide the disclosures could result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to prosecute means not moving a case forward as required.

The court also directed defense counsel to serve Smith with a copy of the order and file proof of service. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang did not dismiss the case in this order. The court cited its authority under Rule 41 to dismiss a case for failure to comply with court orders and discussed how a plaintiff’s failure to meet discovery obligations can support dismissal, including when the plaintiff is proceeding without a lawyer.