Hanover Insurance Company v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, 1:13-cv-00860

This is a Northern District of New York action where Hanover seeks coverage from Vermont Mutual for a lead-based hazards lawsuit.
A scheduling order set discovery completion for March 31, 2014, with later extensions to May 2, 2014.
Hanover served discovery demands January 28, 2014; disputes arose over timing and content of responses.
Plaintiff claimed delays were due to document retrieval and certification challenges; defendant sought to compel and potentially preclude claims.
The court denied Vermont Mutual’s motion to strike/dismiss, finding no willful noncompliance and that delays were not egregious enough to warrant drastic sanctions.
Discovery was ultimately extended and a June 4, 2014 deadline was set for outstanding responses; the court noted a lack of prejudice to defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sanctions including dismissal are appropriate for discovery delays.	Hanover contends delays were nonwillful and remedied, justifying denial of severe sanctions.	Vermont Mutual argues ongoing noncompliance and potential prejudice justify striking the complaint or dismissal.	Sanctions denied; not willful and not prejudicial.
Whether the court should compel compliance or preclude evidence due to late responses.	Hanover asserts efforts to comply should be respected and that extensions were granted.	Vermont Mutual seeks enforcement and possibly preclusion for late responses.	Court ordered June 4, 2014 responses and extended deadlines; no drastic sanction imposed.
Whether the delay in discovery warrants drastic sanctions given the history.	Delays followed court-approved extensions and were due to document difficulties.	Even with extensions, ongoing delays might harm defense.	Delay not egregious enough; no dismissal or striking order warranted.

Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) (broad discretion to impose sanctions; dismissal is drastic but possible for willful violation)
Southern New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (discovery orders should be complied with; sanctions appropriate for willful misconduct or fault)
Sieck v. Russo, 869 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) (consideration of willfulness, reasons for noncompliance, and efficacy of lesser sanctions)
Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849 (2d Cir. 1995) (noncompliance factors and deterrence considerations in sanctions)
Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Pub., Ltd., 843 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1988) (purpose of sanctions to deter noncompliance and ensure future compliance)