Akers v. Beal Bank
760 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- Akers sued Beal Bank and Countrywide Home Loans for breach of contract and tort claims regarding a property she formerly owned in DC.
- The court previously granted parts of the defendants' 12(b)(6) and 8 motions, allowing a breach of contract claim to proceed but dismissing tort claims.
- Akers repeatedly failed to participate in discovery: failed to provide written responses and to adequately respond about damages, and tardily attended a deposition that was cancelled.
- The court issued a May 18, 2010 order granting a motion to compel discovery and extending deadlines, including a deposition deadline and a monetary payment related to the deposition that never occurred.
- On June 8, 2010 the defendants moved again to dismiss under Rule 37 and 41; Akers filed opposition and a July 8, 2010 supplemental declaration claiming she had complied with discovery.
- The court denied the defendants' motion to strike Akers' July 8 declaration and denied the second motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding Akers had fulfilled discovery obligations as ordered and that dismissal was unwarranted at that time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 8 declaration should be struck | Akers claims the declaration clarifies her discovery compliance. | Beal Bank argues the declaration is improper sur-reply beyond allowed filings. | Court declines to strike the declaration. |
| Whether the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with discovery | Akers contends she complied with discovery per the May 18 order. | Beal Bank asserts persistent noncompliance warrants dismissal. | Court declines to dismiss without prejudice; finds discovery obligations fulfilled as ordered. |
| whether pro se status warrants broader leeway in discovery compliance | Akers should receive latitude due to pro se status. | Despite leniency, plaintiff must follow discovery rules. | Court recognizes pro se latitude but emphasizes necessity to comply with discovery obligations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Shah, 696 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2010) (supplemental filings considered when helpful to the merits)
- Wada v. U.S. Secret Serv., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (court may consider supplemental materials in appropriate cases)
- Dixon v. Midland Mortg. Co., 719 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2010) (preference for adjudicating on the merits over technicalities in untimely opposition)
- Weisberg v. Webster, 749 F.2d 864 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (dismissal as a sanction for noncompliance with discovery and court orders)