United States District Court, D. Maryland
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Report and Recommendation addresses the Motion for Sanctions
(“Motion”) filed by Defendant Victory Van Lines
d/b/a Great Nation Moving, LLC
(“Victory”). (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff Shera Woodbury
(“Woodbury”) has not responded to the Motion and
the time for doing so has passed. Because Victory seeks
dispositive relief in its motion, this Report and
Recommendation is submitted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1)
and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See also Loc.
Rule 301.5(b). For the reasons set forth below, I recommend
that the Court grant Victory's Motion and dismiss
Woodbury's case with prejudice.
brought this case against her former employer, Victory, to
recover for discrimination on the basis of sex, national
origin, and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§
12112 to 12117. A scheduling order was initially entered
more than one year ago, on January 3, 2018. (ECF No. 50.) A
second scheduling order was entered on November 8, 2018. (ECF
No. 70.) Under the current scheduling order, the deadline for
the completion of discovery was March 22, 2019.
March 21, 2019, the Court granted Victory's motion to
compel and ordered Woodbury to “to produce complete and
non-evasive responses to Victory's Interrogatories (Nos.
1-6, 11, 13-18, and 20) and complete responses to all of
Victory's document production requests” by April 3,
2019. (ECF No. 90 at 6.) The Court cautioned Woodbury that if
she failed to comply with the order compelling discovery,
Victory may file a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule
37(b) and the Court may issue the following sanctions:
(i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other
designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the
action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the
disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated
claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in
evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv)
staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v)
dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi)
rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party;
or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey
any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).
April 5, 2019, after the deadline for Woodbury to comply with
the order compelling discovery had passed, Victory sought
leave of the Court to file a motion for sanctions. (ECF No.
91.) In its letter, Victory described the deficiencies in
Woodbury's discovery production. (Id.) The Court
held an on-the-record telephone conference on April 10, 2019,
to discuss Victory's proposed motion for sanctions. (ECF
Nos. 93 & 101.) During the telephone conference, Woodbury
equivocated about whether she had produced all of the
discovery required by the Court's previous order. The
Court granted Victory leave to file its motion for sanctions
and established a briefing schedule. (ECF No. 94.) Victory
filed the Motion in accordance with the briefing schedule,
but Woodbury did not file any response.
Woodbury Violated the Order Compelling Discovery
argues that Woodbury's discovery production is deficient
in two ways. First, Woodbury produced a few dozen documents
to Victory, even though she previously stated that she had
“thousands” of documents to produce in discovery.
(ECF No. 97-1 at 7.) Second, Woodbury provided incomplete and
evasive answers to Victory's interrogatories.
(Id. at 11.) As explained below, I find that
Woodbury has violated the Court's order compelling her to
Woodbury's Document Production
has alleged that she suffered physical, mental, and emotional
injury in connection with Victory's alleged unlawful
conduct and has made a claim for related damages. In order to
discover the basis for Woodbury's claim for damages,
Victory sought documents pertaining to Woodbury's
physical, emotional, and mental health. (Id. at 8.)
Victory states that Woodbury “has acknowledged multiple
times, including under oath at her depositions, that she has
extensive documentation in her possession related to
her medical care and treatment.” (Id.
(emphasis in original).) Nonetheless, Woodbury has “not
produced any of these documents.” (Id. at 9.)
argues that the prejudice that it will suffer in connection
with Woodbury's deficient document production related to
her damages is compounded by Woodbury's refusal to
disclose the names of her regular medical providers to
Victory. (Id.) Although Woodbury has reported during
discovery that “she saw lots of doctors, ” she
“could not remember the names of her regular
neurologist or her therapist.” (Id.) Woodbury
stated that the identities of her medical providers were
contained in the documents that were in her possession, but
she never produced those documents to Victory. (Id.)
Income and ...