JANA SMITH, Plaintiff, v. MARK DOWNEY, CHARLES OLSEN. ARIELL HARTWELL, MARK SIMON and SHERMAN SMITH, Defendants 3:21-cv-454-JR United States District Court, D. Oregon Filed July 01, 2024 Counsel Frank Hamlet Wall, Frank Wall, LLC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff. Mark Downey, Portland, OR, Pro Se. Robert Roosevelt Parker Jr., Law Office of Robert R Parker Jr LLB LLC, Portland, OR, for Defendants. Russo, Jolie A., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Plaintiff, Jana Smith, brings this action seeking relief for the defendants’ “discriminatory hostile housing environment, conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, conversion, retaliation, ouster, false imprisonment, trespass, failure to maintain, unlawful and deceptive trade practices and other common law claims arising out of plaintiff's lease of [a Portland, Oregon] premises.” (ECF 26) at ¶ 8. Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for contempt and sanctions and defendant Mark Downey's motion to vacate his default and reinstate his answer. A. Sanctions Plaintiff asserts defendants Mark Simon and Ariell Hartwell's refusal to cooperate in discovery merits a sanction of default. Plaintiff also seeks attorney fees in the amount of $3,150 for nine hours of work in preparing this motion as well as preparation of motions to compel.[1] This Court recently ordered defendants Simon, Hartwell, and their counsel to provide complete documents and answers as requested in the requests for admissions and production of documents dated April 1, 2023, and April 10, 2023. Order dated January 26, 2024 (ECF 111). The Court declined to award any monetary sanctions at the time but warned that further failures to meet and confer or respond to motions may result in sanctions. Although a response to the motion was due March 12, 2024, defendants waited until April 7, 2024, to seek leave to file a late response. Nonetheless, the Court allowed the late filing. Defendants assert they appeared at their depositions and answered candidly and completely and note that plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition and has been elusive in responding to discovery requests. Plaintiff generally asserts defendants’ discovery responses have been lacking. Both parties have been negligent in meeting and conferring in this matter to move discovery along efficiently. Moreover, when plaintiff brings discovery issues to the Court, it is often difficult to discern the exact nature of the dispute. In deciding whether a sanction of dismissal or default for noncompliance with discovery is appropriate, the district court must weigh five factors:“ ‘(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [opposing party]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’ ” Id. (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)). Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004). Although this case has been pending for a significant period of time, all parties have played a role in the discovery failures not only in meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes absent court intervention, but also regarding clearly framing the issues to allow the Court an adequate opportunity to determine how to move discovery to completion. Rather than jump to onerous sanctions at this time, the Court once again reminds the parties to meet and confer regarding discovery disputes and to make an honest effort to resolve any issues. In addition, if the parties are unable to resolve any discovery dispute, the parties are directed to bring the matter to the Court and clearly identify the discovery sought and how responses are lacking. Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is denied at this time. B. Motion to Vacate Default *2 On March 6, 2024, the Court entered a default as to defendant Mark Downey based on his refusal to update the Court with his current address. On June 7, 2024, defendant Downey asserted he assumed the case had been dismissed and was not aware of various filing in this case due to not having a permanent address. Defendant now seeks to have his answer reinstated. Plaintiff does not object to reinstatement of the answer provided that discovery is reopened, and defendant Downey fully cooperates. Downey's current address provided to the Court is 4252 NE Senate St., Portland, Or. 97213. Defendant Downey's motion is granted, and defendant is remined that he must keep the Court apprised of his current mailing address, business email address, and telephone number, and accept documents filed by plaintiff and served upon him. In addition, discovery shall be reopened to facilitate defendant Downey's return to the case and to allow the other parties to address the discovery issues noted above. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's motion for imposition of sanctions (ECF 114) is denied. Defendant Downey's motion to reinstate his answer (ECF 131) is granted. In addition, discovery is to be completed by September 30, 2024, dispositive motions are due by December 30, 2024, the joint alternate dispute resolution report is due by January 30, 2025, and the pretrial order is due by February 28, 2025, or 30 days after this Court's final ruling on dispositive motions, whichever date is later. Due to the age of this case, no further extensions will be granted absent good cause. DATED this 1st day of July, 2024. Footnotes [1] Plaintiff's motions to compel have been denied (ECF 53, 57, 58) and granted (ECF 79), and granted in part (ECF 111).