Barbara ANDERSEN, Plaintiff, v. Gregory A. THOMPSON, et al., Defendants Case No. 1:22-CV-00627 United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division Signed: May 05, 2023 Counsel Barbara Andersen, Western Springs, IL, Pro Se. Gregory A. Thompson, Berea, OH, Pro Se, for Defendant Gregory A. Thompson. Parker, Thomas M., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Andersen moved to sanction Thompson for his failure to timely comply with the court's order to respond to her requests for production. ECF Doc. 103. Thompson does not deny that he failed to comply with the court's order but has asserted that he did not have access to the documents because he was moving. ECF Doc. 112. At the court's May 5, 2023 hearing, Thompson provided a myriad of excuses for his delay in providing Andersen with her production requests. The court announced on the record that it rejected Thompson's excuses for non-compliance with the order to produce documents by January 23, 2023. Because Thompson's behavior has shown a willful disregard for the court's discovery orders, Andersen's motion for sanctions (ECF Doc. 103) is GRANTED.[1] I. Law and Analysis The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant district courts the authority to impose sanctions for discovery violations and failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); 41(b). Moreover, Rule 37(c)(1) specifically permits a court to impose monetary sanctions for a party's refusal to obey a discovery order. Youn v. Track, Inc., 324 F.3d 409, 420 (6th Cir. 2003). Courts consider four factors in determining whether sanctions under Rule 37 are appropriate: The first factor is whether the party's failure to cooperate in discovery is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; the second factor is whether the adversary was prejudiced by the party's failure to cooperate in discovery; the third factor is whether the party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to the sanction; and the fourth factor in regard to a dismissal is whether less drastic sanctions were first imposed or considered. Freeland v. Amigo, 103 F.3d 1271, 1277 (6th Cir. 1997). Whether a party's conduct meets the willfulness, bad faith, or fault requirement requires: [A] clear record of delay or contumacious conduct. Contumacious conduct is behavior that is perverse in resisting authority and stubbornly disobedient. The [party's] conduct must display either an intent to thwart judicial proceedings or a reckless disregard for the effect of his conduct on those proceedings. Barron v. Univ. of Michigan, 613 F. App'x 480, 484 (6th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Prejudice arises when the party's faulty conduct results in the opposing party's wasted time, money, and effort to obtain what the party was legally obligated to provide. Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 707 (6th Cir. 2013). “Prior notice that a party's further noncompliance would result in dismissal is not indispensable but is one factor to be considered.” Bard v. Brown Cty., No. 1:15-CV-00643, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46934, at *13-14 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2018) (citing Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 379 F. App'x 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2010)). *2 Thompson's “justifications” for failing to provide his responsive production to Andersen in a timely manner are illogical, unpersuasive, and, ultimately, contumacious. In a January 20, 2023 status conference, the parties raised discovery issues to the court, including Thompson's failure to provide responses to Andersen's timely requests for production. See ECF Doc. 100. At that time, Thompson informed the court that (1) he had mailed a disc to Andersen's post office box, which purportedly contained the responsive documents and/or media; and (2) he would resend the disc the following Monday, January 23, 2023. Based on this representation, the court ordered Thompson to mail the disc on January 23, 2023. ECF Doc. 100. Subsequently, Andersen moved to sanction Thompson, alleging that he never sent her the disc and, thus, never responded to her requests for production. ECF Doc. 103. The court ordered Thompson to show cause as to why he could not be held in contempt (ECF Doc. 109), to which Thompson admitted he did not comply with the court's order, stating he “did not have the documents to mail, due to moving out and the computer was unavailable at [the] time.” ECF Doc. 112 at 1. With his response, Thompson indicated he mailed the disc to Andersen on March 1, 2023 – nearly 40 days after he informed the court he would send it. Id. At the court's May 5, 2023 hearing on Andersen's motion for sanctions, Thompson cited a host of supposed hurdles, quagmires, and serendipitous life events that he alleged prevented him from complying. Thompson's series of unfortunate events, however, is unavailing. The one consistent theme of Thompson's testimony was that he was kicked out of his house and lost access to a computer containing items to be produced – on January 27, 2023 – 4 days after he was to have mailed the disc to Andersen. Thompson stated on the record that he chose to engage in other priorities, thereby implying that he was permitted to pick and choose whether he would comply with the orders of the court based on his personal convenience. And Thompson never explained – if he did have schedule concerns – why he did not contact the court about his woes (despite his readiness to do so in other circumstances), nor did he point to any exceptional circumstances that truly warranted a delay. As a result, I find that Thompson's behavior demonstrated a willful disregard for the court's discovery order, which prejudiced Andersen, and for which Thompson had notice that the failure to comply would result in sanctions. See Freeland, 103 F.3d at 1277. Thompson did, however, eventually provide Andersen the production and did so well in advance of any trial. Consequently, a lesser sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, Andersen's motion for sanctions under Rule 37 (ECF Doc. 103) is GRANTED. The court ORDERS Thompson to pay – via certified check – Andersen the sum of $250.00 to partially compensate plaintiff for the inconvenience he has caused her by failing to meet his discovery obligations and abide by the orders of the court. Thompson must mail the certified check to Andersen's address – as identified on this court's docket and do so not later than May 12, 2023. To ensure Thompson's compliance, the court further orders that Thompson use certified U.S. mail to send the sanctions check and file the proof of delivery with the court. Failure to comply with this order shall result in a further sanctions order and/or a contempt of court citation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] See Builders Insulation of Tenn., LLC v. Southern Energy Sols., No. 17-CV-2668, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8531, at *9-11 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2020) (collecting cases recognizing a magistrate judge's authority to impose sanctions under Rule 37).