What brings this matter back before the Court is Plaintiff Janice Hampton's ongoing failure to respond to Defendant's written discovery requests, despite the Magistrate Judge's order compelling her to do so and warnings about the possible consequences of Plaintiff's failure to comply. This discovery dispute arose after Defendant served Plaintiff with its first set of interrogatories back in December 2019 and Plaintiff never responded. Defendant filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 56) on April 27, 2020, in which Defendant asked the Court to order Plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories within 14 days. Defendant also requested that the Court consider sanctions against Plaintiff, including the dismissal of her case, in the event she failed to comply with the Court's order. Months passed, and yet Plaintiff never responded to Defendant's motion to compel, despite the fact that Defendant had requested the possible dismissal of her case.

So on October 23, 2020, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the motion to compel should not be granted and why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Order to Show Cause, Oct. 23, 2020 (ECF No. 74). The Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories and the motion to compel had been due many months before. Still, the Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff another chance to be heard and ordered her to respond to the Show Cause Order by November 6, 2020. The Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiff that her failure to respond might result in Defendant's motion to compel being granted and/or the dismissal of Plaintiff's case. Even after that grave admonition, Plaintiff failed to respond to the show cause order. The Magistrate Judge therefore issued a report and recommendation that Plaintiff's case be dismissed.

Faced with the recommendation that her case be dismissed, Plaintiff finally responded but only with objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Plaintiff explained that she had attempted to retain counsel to assist her in prosecuting her claims but had been unsuccessful in doing so due to the ongoing pandemic. Otherwise, Plaintiff did not directly address the motion to compel or show why she could not respond to Defendant's interrogatories. Rather than dismiss Plaintiff's case at that time, however, the Court elected to give Plaintiff more time to meet her discovery obligations and prosecute her claims. While the Court concluded that dismissal was not justified at that juncture, the Court did recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of Defendant's motion to compel and what lesser sanctions might be warranted for Plaintiff's failure to respond to the discovery. The Court “strongly cautioned that [Plaintiff's] failure to cooperate in discovery, make timely responses to Defendant's motions, or any other failure to comply with court orders may result in the dismissal of her case without further notice.” Order Sustaining Objs. to the Mag. J.'s Rep. & Recommendation, 8.

*2 The Magistrate Judge thereafter took up Defendant's motion to compel and found good cause to grant it. See Order Granting Def.'s Mot. to Compel, Jan. 29, 2021 (ECF No. 82). The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff until February 19, 2021, in which to respond to the interrogatories. And for good measure, the Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file a notice with the Court, once she had complied with the discovery order. The Magistrate Judge once more took the opportunity to caution Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the order might result in the dismissal of her case without further notice.

When Plaintiff did not produce responses to the interrogatories or file a notice with the Court as the Magistrate Judge had directed, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss. According to Defendant, Plaintiff has still not complied with the Magistrate Judge's order granting the motion to compel. Defendant therefore seeks the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims as a sanction for her abuse of the discovery process and for her continuing failure to prosecute her case. And when Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss within the time allowed, the Magistrate Judge issued a Second Show Cause Order, directing Plaintiff to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed as a discovery sanction and for her failure to prosecute. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff until April 23, 2021, in which to respond to the show cause order as well as comply with her discovery obligations. Just as she did not respond to the Magistrate Judge's original Show Cause Order (or at many other points in this case), Plaintiff has not responded to the Second Show Cause Order.

The Court finds that dismissal of this case is warranted. More than 17 months have passed since Defendant served Plaintiff with interrogatories and more than three months have passed since the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to respond to the interrogatories. Plaintiff has never responded to the discovery and never explained why the Court should excuse her failure to do so. Plaintiff's disregard for the discovery process has forced Defendant to file more than one motion with the Court, all for the simple purpose of obtaining Plaintiff's cooperation in discovery. On a number of occasions, Defendant has requested dismissal as a sanction. Plaintiff has repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to present her position in written responses to motions and orders: first to the interrogatories, then to Defendant's motion to compel, then to the Magistrate Judge's first Show Cause Order, then to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and finally to a Second Show Cause Order. The Magistrate Judge and the Court have frequently cautioned Plaintiff about the possible dismissal of her case as a sanction for this course of conduct. Most recently, the Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiff that her failure to respond to the Second Show Cause Order might result in the dismissal of her case without further notice. Plaintiff has apparently never heeded these warnings. As a result, the Court concludes that dismissal of the case is now required.

Therefore, the Court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff's case as a discovery sanction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(5) and for her failure to prosecute her claims pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.