IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 21, 2007
PABLO J. MARTINEZ-BARREN, PLAINTIFF
INGRAM MICRO, INC., DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2007, upon consideration of defendant's motion for sanctions (Doc. 33)*fn1 for plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery requests,*fn2 see FED. R. CIV. P. 37, and it appearing that defendant has not filed a motion to compel before seeking sanctions,*fn3 see id. 37(a)(2)(B) (providing that if a party fails to produce the requested documents, "the discovering party may move for an order compelling" the production of the documents); see also McMullen v. Bay Ship Mgmt., 335 F.3d 215, 217 (3d Cir. 2003) ("Generally, [Rule 37] requires the issuance of an order to compel and only after failure to comply with that order should a penalty be imposed."), and that under the current pretrial and trial schedule dispositive motions were due on February 15, 2007 (see Doc. 23), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion for sanctions (Doc. 33) is CONSTRUED as a motion to compel and is GRANTED as so construed.
2. On or before March 12, 2007, plaintiff shall respond to defendant's interrogatories, request for production of documents, and request for admissions.
3. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include the dismissal of this case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37, 41(b); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).
4. The pretrial and trial schedule in the above-captioned matter is STAYED pending plaintiff's responses to defendant's discovery requests.
5. If necessary, a revised pretrial and trial schedule shall issue by future order of court.