Fischer, Nora Barry, United States District Judge
Defendant argued that the court should impose sanctions on plaintiff, including exclusion of evidence and dismissal, for her alleged failure to produce numerous documents as part of initial disclosures to defendant's first request for production. Plaintiff argued that she was not obligated to supplement her responses because they were sufficient. She argued that in the event they were not, the court should nevertheless refuse to impose sanctions because defendant failed to follow the procedural requirements which required that defendant first move to compel production of documents. Plaintiff further contended that defendant failed to meet and confer as required by the rules, and argued that with respect to defendant's argument regarding dismissal as a sanction, defendant did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice to warrant dismissal of plaintiff's case. The court considered the newly revised rules on proportionality and found that the extensive discovery undertaken appeared proportional to the needs of the case. However, the court found that:
Defendant's refusal to follow the rules undermined its request for sanctions. The court gave clear guidance to counsel and the parties that they were to meet and confer regarding discovery, and in the event the parties reached an impasse, they were to contact the court. Defendant started this case adhering to some of the court's guidance by filing its first motion to compel, but failed to follow through and adhere to the court's order. Given defendant's failure to follow the rules, any sanction the court were to impose would reward defendant's “wait–and–sanction” approach, something the court will not support. If a party feels that it has not received disclosures or discovery responses to which it claims it is entitled, it should first meet and confer in person or by telephone in an attempt to resolve the issue, and if that does not resolve the dispute, reach out to the court by requesting a status conference or filing a motion to compel. In the event the party refuses to follow a court order, then that party's refusal may warrant sanctions depending on the circumstances of the case. Since that was not the case here, the court will deny defendants' request for sanctions.
v.
Robert Huston, Administrator, Laboratory Director of the Medical Examiner of Allegheny County, in his individual capacity; Stephen Pilarski, former Administrator of the Office of the Medical Examiner of Allegheny County and currently Deputy Manager of Allegheny County, in his individual capacity; Michael Baker, former Manager of Morgue Operations, in his individual capacity; Michael Chichwak, Manager of Investigations, in his individual capacity; and Allegheny County of Pennsylvania, Defendants
Counsel
Michael J. Lorence, James B. Lieber, Thomas M. Huber, Lieber Hammer Huber & Bennington, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.Virginia Spencer Scott, Benjamin T.S. Trodden, Frances M. Liebenguth, Allegheny County Department of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.